I'm sorry to bother you so long after the event, but I was wondering why your 16:07, 14 Nov 2004 edit of the Fritz Lang article removed the words "(an ambitious two-part adaptation of the Ring of the Nibelung saga (better known from Wagner's opera)"? Of course, it was a clumsy phrase and could have been worded better, but I wondered what made you decide to delete it rather than replace it? I hope this doesn't sound nosey, I was just curious. -- Chips Critic 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it was my statement actually (certainly, I never made any reference to Wagner when I worked on the article months ago, as I didn't think it was necessary). Checking again I realise that phrase wasn't cut on your 16:07 edit, but was cut in your 16:20 edit on the same day. As you don't recall cutting this, I'm assuming it was some kind of accident or technical error, but if you make a comparison of your 16:07 edit with your 16:20 immediately after it, the alteration is there. I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I thought I should correct my earlier comment. --
Chips Critic 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I already did, and have again, but the lines relating to Wagner were also deleted under your name. Check the histories, comparing your 16:07 edit with that of 16:20. Those words were removed under your name, whether you yourself made the edit or not. --
Chips Critic 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have restored my "Wow" edits that were reverted by the extremely prolific editor "FayssalF" (or done some similar improvements) - thanks! Bob Gray
Hello Alderbourne,
I have attempted to unblock you via the the Unblock User tool, but it stated that your user name could not be unblocked as it wasn't found on the block list. Can you put your IP on my user page? Oberiko 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Pond.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Page restored, jimfbleak 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent to see David Holt in your Dream Diary list. You may like to know that his library has been accepted by Essex University and that the Jewish Chronicle this week records the establishment of a new ethical institute to be called ResponsAbility. Jeffrey Newman
Actuall, I think the deleted have a point about notabuility. The page should address the book rather than a syndrome. 1Z 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see Nancy Price in your Dream Diary list. Wonder if you could have a look at the entry for Nancy Price and give your thoughts. Excellent regards Excellentone ( talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal testimony is not allowed on wikipedia, see WP:OR.-- IvoShandor ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Your not even talking about the article are you, you're talking about the talk page. I archived it because this isn't a discussion forum. The talk pages are for dicussing improvements to the article. If you can back up your testimony with published sources it can improve the article but as it stood you were simply using the talk page as a place to discuss EHS, so were a lot of other people, so I just archived it. --
IvoShandor (
talk)
15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment you reference was not directed at anyone in particular, just at the talk page and the fact it consisted almost entirely of discussion only about the article's subject and not actually about improving it, and I am sorry if you were offended. In the future feel free to message me on my talk page, I don't bite, and I don't mind if others see that a fellow editor has problems or concerns with any of my edits. Again, sorry I was so smug. --
IvoShandor (
talk)
05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and new threads added to talk pages should be directly related to improving the article, not comments about the article's subject. For this reason, some of your comments on Talk:Roman Polanski have been deleted per WP:TALK. While an occasional reply addressing an editor directly is permitted and helpful, a new comment thread that invites forum-like discussion of the article's subject is contrary to the purpose of WP's talk pages. Please bear this in mind when making future contributions, particularly to such highly controversial pages as this one currently is. Thank you, and have a great day! Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 09:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. That said, I agree that there is a lot of misplaced outrage on that talk page, but starting such a thread only invites more of the same. So while I agree with some of your comments, I must delete the thread for the good of the article. I hope you understand.
Actually, that was not quite what I had in mind. If your comments were made in support of some proposed change to the article for its betterment, I would have let them stand untouched. But talk pages are for comments directed to improving the article only. They are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Just as other editors should not use the talk page to metaphorically lynch Polanski, neither should the talk page be used to defend him. The talk page has one purpose: discussing how to improve the article. That is all. It does not matter who the comments favor. I certainly disagree very strongly with many comments that I let stand on the talk page, but I left them there because they were placed there to propose a change to the article. While I disagree with them, I cannot remove them, unless they are prohibited postings, per
WP:TALK. Thank you for respecting the editing process. I mean that.
Wilhelm Meis (
Quatsch!)
15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
MOTION TO DELETE ON BLP AND OTHER GROUNDS. This edit contains an unsubstantiated claim which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim. Further: The editor has plagerized this text, word for word, as well as this edit [1], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's [2] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not even Polanski disputes the incident. That a child drugged with muscle relaxants and alcohol had no obvious rips or tears in her body does not show that she was not raped - it may however indicate a high probability that the offenders penis was quite small and that he took his time using her.
99.142.5.86 (
talk)
15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Two points: 1) Unless you go through a formal process to prove that you posted those comments to the NYT page (which may not even be possible without contacting the admins of that site), you can't repost the text. 2) Your personal experiences are not enough to satisfy BLP. I suggest you drop the matter. —
The Hand That Feeds You:
Bite
18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you used the name doesn't satisfy copyright needs. You're free to continue this, but I have a feeling it will simply result in you being blocked. —
The Hand That Feeds You:
Bite
20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern, noted above, regarding your claim at Talk:roman polanski has been brought to AN/I for a hearing. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not reply to Wikipedia emails directly, but I have opened a topic at Talk:Patrick Moore to discuss the issue. Dabbler ( talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Innovative pen-n-paper cipher! Good work. GirkovArpa ( talk) 02:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC) |
I think before we go through the trouble of a formal arbitration to remove Hutton's paradox from the Dream Argument article we should illicit the community's thoughts and/or a third opinion. Hopefully their insights will help you get a broader view and perhaps resolve it to your satisfaction. Lordvolton ( talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you so long after the event, but I was wondering why your 16:07, 14 Nov 2004 edit of the Fritz Lang article removed the words "(an ambitious two-part adaptation of the Ring of the Nibelung saga (better known from Wagner's opera)"? Of course, it was a clumsy phrase and could have been worded better, but I wondered what made you decide to delete it rather than replace it? I hope this doesn't sound nosey, I was just curious. -- Chips Critic 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it was my statement actually (certainly, I never made any reference to Wagner when I worked on the article months ago, as I didn't think it was necessary). Checking again I realise that phrase wasn't cut on your 16:07 edit, but was cut in your 16:20 edit on the same day. As you don't recall cutting this, I'm assuming it was some kind of accident or technical error, but if you make a comparison of your 16:07 edit with your 16:20 immediately after it, the alteration is there. I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I thought I should correct my earlier comment. --
Chips Critic 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I already did, and have again, but the lines relating to Wagner were also deleted under your name. Check the histories, comparing your 16:07 edit with that of 16:20. Those words were removed under your name, whether you yourself made the edit or not. --
Chips Critic 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have restored my "Wow" edits that were reverted by the extremely prolific editor "FayssalF" (or done some similar improvements) - thanks! Bob Gray
Hello Alderbourne,
I have attempted to unblock you via the the Unblock User tool, but it stated that your user name could not be unblocked as it wasn't found on the block list. Can you put your IP on my user page? Oberiko 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Pond.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Page restored, jimfbleak 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent to see David Holt in your Dream Diary list. You may like to know that his library has been accepted by Essex University and that the Jewish Chronicle this week records the establishment of a new ethical institute to be called ResponsAbility. Jeffrey Newman
Actuall, I think the deleted have a point about notabuility. The page should address the book rather than a syndrome. 1Z 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see Nancy Price in your Dream Diary list. Wonder if you could have a look at the entry for Nancy Price and give your thoughts. Excellent regards Excellentone ( talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal testimony is not allowed on wikipedia, see WP:OR.-- IvoShandor ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Your not even talking about the article are you, you're talking about the talk page. I archived it because this isn't a discussion forum. The talk pages are for dicussing improvements to the article. If you can back up your testimony with published sources it can improve the article but as it stood you were simply using the talk page as a place to discuss EHS, so were a lot of other people, so I just archived it. --
IvoShandor (
talk)
15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment you reference was not directed at anyone in particular, just at the talk page and the fact it consisted almost entirely of discussion only about the article's subject and not actually about improving it, and I am sorry if you were offended. In the future feel free to message me on my talk page, I don't bite, and I don't mind if others see that a fellow editor has problems or concerns with any of my edits. Again, sorry I was so smug. --
IvoShandor (
talk)
05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and new threads added to talk pages should be directly related to improving the article, not comments about the article's subject. For this reason, some of your comments on Talk:Roman Polanski have been deleted per WP:TALK. While an occasional reply addressing an editor directly is permitted and helpful, a new comment thread that invites forum-like discussion of the article's subject is contrary to the purpose of WP's talk pages. Please bear this in mind when making future contributions, particularly to such highly controversial pages as this one currently is. Thank you, and have a great day! Wilhelm Meis ( Quatsch!) 09:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. That said, I agree that there is a lot of misplaced outrage on that talk page, but starting such a thread only invites more of the same. So while I agree with some of your comments, I must delete the thread for the good of the article. I hope you understand.
Actually, that was not quite what I had in mind. If your comments were made in support of some proposed change to the article for its betterment, I would have let them stand untouched. But talk pages are for comments directed to improving the article only. They are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Just as other editors should not use the talk page to metaphorically lynch Polanski, neither should the talk page be used to defend him. The talk page has one purpose: discussing how to improve the article. That is all. It does not matter who the comments favor. I certainly disagree very strongly with many comments that I let stand on the talk page, but I left them there because they were placed there to propose a change to the article. While I disagree with them, I cannot remove them, unless they are prohibited postings, per
WP:TALK. Thank you for respecting the editing process. I mean that.
Wilhelm Meis (
Quatsch!)
15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
MOTION TO DELETE ON BLP AND OTHER GROUNDS. This edit contains an unsubstantiated claim which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim. Further: The editor has plagerized this text, word for word, as well as this edit [1], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's [2] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not even Polanski disputes the incident. That a child drugged with muscle relaxants and alcohol had no obvious rips or tears in her body does not show that she was not raped - it may however indicate a high probability that the offenders penis was quite small and that he took his time using her.
99.142.5.86 (
talk)
15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Two points: 1) Unless you go through a formal process to prove that you posted those comments to the NYT page (which may not even be possible without contacting the admins of that site), you can't repost the text. 2) Your personal experiences are not enough to satisfy BLP. I suggest you drop the matter. —
The Hand That Feeds You:
Bite
18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you used the name doesn't satisfy copyright needs. You're free to continue this, but I have a feeling it will simply result in you being blocked. —
The Hand That Feeds You:
Bite
20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern, noted above, regarding your claim at Talk:roman polanski has been brought to AN/I for a hearing. 99.142.5.86 ( talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not reply to Wikipedia emails directly, but I have opened a topic at Talk:Patrick Moore to discuss the issue. Dabbler ( talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Innovative pen-n-paper cipher! Good work. GirkovArpa ( talk) 02:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC) |
I think before we go through the trouble of a formal arbitration to remove Hutton's paradox from the Dream Argument article we should illicit the community's thoughts and/or a third opinion. Hopefully their insights will help you get a broader view and perhaps resolve it to your satisfaction. Lordvolton ( talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)