![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi could you do me the favour of taking a further look both at the article and the and give your opinion here if this information belongs in the article or not. It seems to me as if it's over focusing on Fiscers anti semitism with trivial details but his antisemitism is already refereed to plenty in the article.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks [1]! — Kralizec! ( talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 ( talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to issue me that warning, please review the other users talk page and issue the same, for consistency. User_talk:Toddst1 -- DoyleCB ( talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The user above is a sock of User:MascotGuy. Checkout the userpage for a link to the Long term abuse page. I've submitted several requests for a block.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was filed the 3RR complaint on user:Niex05at the same time. Do you have experience with SPI complaints? Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there - I reverted your removal of the ridiculous rant by User:Professionresearchharvard over at ANI. While your reasons were fine, it is generally bad form to delete material at ANI. It is actually useful to the community to know of the actions of users like this, particularly when they use ANI to launch a personal attack (a DUMB thing to do, trust me). Regards Manning ( talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know if you are a dreamhost customer.
I've assumed good faith in the past regarding you but realizing that you're practicing Wikipedia:Hounding with me and chasing me through this website for no apparent reason I ask are you in fact a Dreamhost customer? And could you please stop viewing my contributions.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(OD) My contribution history is public, and available here [3]. I haven't commented on Bobby Fischer in quite a while. We've both been active on the Dreamhost article, so it would stand to reason that I would also watch the discussion at Arbcom. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(Moved from user page) If you dont mind, may I ask why you follow me around reverting my edits? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 ( talk • contribs)
You reverted a change in Wikipedia space on the basis that it was an unsourced change. However, sources are only required for articles, not the policies, guidelines, and essays in Wikipedia space. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see statements such as "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). The Verifiability policy applies mainly to articles (although it could be applied to false or dubious statements elsewhere, especially statements about living persons).
My impression of the change from Wall Street Journal to Washington Post was that it was an unnecessary change, but didn't hurt anything. If you think it was better with Wall Street Journal, you could revert. Your preferences for how the text reads are as important as anyone else's. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) I'm always ready to thank users who reverted edits from a vandal who vandalized my page. Impala2009 | Talk 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(moved from user page) If Keith Olbermann said that he does not wear horn-rimmed glasses, would you believe him? Mdriver1981 ( talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain your claim that YouTube is not a reliable source. I posted something linked to YouTube and you removed it. Since it featured Keith Olbermann himself, how is it not relevant to an article on him? Seeker alpha806 ( talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just recieved this from you: Do not harass wikipedia editors, as you did here [1]. If you disagree with another editor's edits, please take your discussion to the talk page of the article for further comments. This editor is not the only one reverting your edits, so consensus is against you as per WP:EL. Threatening him will not help, so please take your concerns to the proper forum.
There was never a threat of any kind, simply a request to have his (and your) supervisors contact info as we have proof of his abuse and bias in regard to external link deletion. We have been intentionally tracking and watching him for a few months and have numerous documented situations that proove these aligations. Matter of fact .. you can go back to the last deletion he did 'Anita Blond' and see where he first deleted instantly with the explination "spammy link that leads to a fake fansite, either way not appropriate", then he recieved our email and quickly went back to delete his comment after realizing he was wrong about both statements. He has now completely deleted the 'external link' section of Anita blonds page and is obviously not fit for this position.
This needs to stop Wikipedia-- GlobalCorp Media ( talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand policy better than Daedalus, he won't stop even when asked to.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You've been a regular contributor to the article on the Crips. Would you mind giving your opinion on this WP:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips? Thanks. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do you suppose it's any of your business? Radiopathy •talk• 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note, since it's obvious what you're doing: if you revert this again, you will likewise go to WP:AN/I for wikihounding. You have no right to get involved in a retaliatory content dispute. Radiopathy •talk• 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks D Dub. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list. -- Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: George Carlin's religious faith Allowing a statement to stand that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith is not a neutral statement as the information provided is from a potentially biased source, George Carlin himself who has in fact clearly demonstrated his anti-Catholic bias, and he has provided no supportive information that verifies his family's regular attendance at a Catholic church, for example, nor whether he was actually confirmed in the Catholic faith - a critical determination as to whether he actually completed his education in the Catholic faith. The addition to the article in this context: "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" therefore makes the sentence far more accurate and less speculative than the sentence is without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk • contribs)
Carlin may have been Baptized into the faith, and may have received some education in the Catholic faith, millions of people do, but writing that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith clearly implies that he completed a Catholic education expected of an average church member. This must remain a speculative and therefore a potentially misleading statement as we have no indication as to whether he completed his Catholic education. Only his confirmation in the faith would demonstrate this and this article provides no formal, or for that matter even any reasonable informal support for the claim. If the statement "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" is to be removed, then the statement "and was raised in the Roman Catholic faith" should also be removed or at the very least revised to remove the implication of Carlin having completed his education in the Catholic faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you appreciate the discussion on this issue but must clear up a point on what was meant by 'Catholic education'. First, completing a Catholic education means that one has taken sufficient Catholic Catechetical instruction to receive ones 'Confirmation' in the faith - which, by the way, is also a Catholic sacrament - this is not related to whether one has attended a public or Catholic school or not, as millions of Catholics have never attended a Catholic school, while in some areas, many non-Catholics have no choice but to attend a local Catholic school for expediency reasons. The implication of the statement 'raised in the Roman Catholic faith' would therefore have to mean that one has at a bare minimum, been confirmed in the faith, and not whether one has been schooled in a Catholic school, if it is to be an accurate statement. One could also reasonably add that it would also mean that one's parents actively participated with the child in matters related to faith - i.e. attending church on a regular basis, receiving Catholic sacraments together, etc. - but we can put that issue aside for now. Finally, you acknowledge in your response that you have no idea whether Carlin completed his Catholic education and that you "have no source to back it up". While you appear to have meant his Catholic schooling I would think that you would also have concede that you also have no source to back up whether Carlin was sacramentally confirmed in the Roman Catholic faith. If this is the case, then that would mean that the current Wikipedia statement on the issue is misleading, and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker; thanks for your helpful comment on my talkpage. The following is CCed from Kralizec's talk page; he left me a stern warning after my post today at AIV. I just want to say thanks for reminding me to just walk away cool-headed. Nimur ( talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Hello Kralizec!. I just wanted to reply to your message to me. I was not attempting to disrupt anything; I am not sure who is a sockpuppet and I don't really care to find out. All I know is that my talk-page was attacked, and I hoped that the AIV would make it go away. Perhaps this does not count as vandalism; I leave that up to others to decide. We've had trouble with these users on the Reference Desk, evidenced by this discussion last week - where I was the chief negotiator to end the disruption; and we really hoped everybody could be mature. All I want is to contribute to the Reference Desk without a hassle. Sorry if my request at AIV was viewed negatively. I'll CC this to fellow administrator User:Dayewalker, who left a helpful comment at my talk page. Thanks, Nimur ( talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"
Thank you for your diligence in monitoring and reverting recent disruptive editing to this article. Dealing with the repeated unexplained deletions of sourced content and unsourced POV insertions by apparent COI editors had worn me out and was souring me toward contributing to Wikipedia. Certainly trying to maintain this article's integrity took time away from other articles to which I would like to have contributed. I had made a report for edit warring but it was deemed stale and I gave up. To my pleasant surprise, other editors such as you and admins took notice and appropriate action. I see that your goal is to become an admin. I would certainly support that goal from what I have seen of your contributions. Regards, OccamzRazor ( talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:) . . . Just so you know I wasn't trying to imply you (or anyone) on the page was "Big Media" or trying to "whitewash" the event; I was just being sarcastic with regards to a comment "cat" had made to me implying that.
I already got warned for that... and I re-added the comment with more civil wording and a small suggestion improvement... xx Pastel kitten ( talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This bug should now be fixed. Let me know if there is still a problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The comment on the talk page which is being removed has always bothered me, as it seems offensive and outside the normal scope of a talk page. I understand that a sockpuppet may be removing it, but this seems to be a case where allowing the removal to stand, may be a benefit. Would you object if I removed it? Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stay out of other people's discussions. If you want to discuss my perfectly legitimate suggestion that the railfan page is deleted then please start a separate discussion with me.
Thanks
Ding Dong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingdong12 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
See
Well, related to typography, there are several articles and images missing. You can see all the red links in List of fonts, and blank spaces (where there should be an image) in Samples of serif typefaces or Samples of display typefaces or Samples of script typefaces, etc... The goal of the collaboration is to upgrade and improve all those things. If you go to the collaboration page, you will find further information and open tasks as well as instructions about all this. That´s basically all. This is a personal request for help in a task here in wikipedia. If you´re interested in collaborate, go ahead! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
then click on the link here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fonts
then look up Hobo (font)
I only followed instructions to try to create articles with red links. Just because Hobo is a funny name does not mean deletion. Hi Balloon Boy ( talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
is there anything you can do about the Brittny Gastineau article page? User:128.104.213.238 has said they will continue to edit war to add unsourced quotes and undue content back into this blp article. Even the one user who was kept adding it back (Spidey104) has finally stopped adding it back because they content was reworded by another ip user (not me). User:128.104.213.238 has said they'll continue to edit war to add the content back in to "keep the truth out there". this is all over a quote from the Bruno movie Brittny appeared in. I get a new IP every time I log on to my isp provider so 128.104.213.238 thinks I"m being a sockpuppet (untrue because Im not acting like different users and have admitted that it's not my fault that i have a rotating ip) [4] and can contiue to add back this content because they claim I'm being deceptive. Can you help pelase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.17.48 ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Dayewalker, please see the discussion section of the Marriage article before you change the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above in regards to the last threads on the talk page? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I wish for you to comment on the threads on the talk page concerning the lead.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above's talk page in regards to the last threads on the talk page about the lead? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Revised the edit to the motto to make it more acceptable after you deleted it, emphasising the endearment towards the college rather than to berate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.53 ( talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to go to Chris Rush / First Rush. It looks like a 3RR might happen there. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Pole shift hypothesis#"See also" links response on talk page to keep it all together. I see your point but there is logic behind the millenium links. Granite07 ( talk) 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(OD) Everything stated above is your opinion, which you're welcome to. I don't share it, the opinion of every wikipedia editor is equal whether they're an IP or an admin. Those opinions are against you now, and your edit war board complaint has been rejected, thus showing there was no edit warring from opposing editors. Good luck with mediation.
Outdents are commonly used at wikipedia to keep discussions readable, I made my comments in reaction to the earlier topic so they should stay there for proper context. Dayewalker ( talk) 09:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dayewalker, I appreciate your contributions to the Steve Gaines (pastor) page, but I wanted to address some of your additions to the "Handling of Minister Misconduct" section. This section is by far the largest section for the biography, but only a small section of Gaines' life. I believe that this section is given undue weight. Also, the third party criticisms, although sourced, are not encyclopedic material. These are outside opinions that are not balanced. I believe this sections should remain factual, and not skewed. I am not requesting we remove the section, just the third party criticisms, because they are not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyMemphisNative ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank for this one. That barnstar must have made me careless. Favonian ( talk) 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I value your opinion. Could you check on the section regarding waterboarding on the talk and post yours? Thanks for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the entire section on the talk page, accusing him of plagiarism, is a BLP violation and should be deleted. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
Thanks for being quick to catch vandalism to my userpage! Keep up the good work 7 03:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
Someone vandalized my Userspace!
I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it!
Thank you! You can thank others by using {{
subst:Vangel}}! --
Meaghan
the vanilla twilight
14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For this bit of tidying up. That's why I never worry about logging off. Someone's always watching :) Tide rolls 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
For your protection of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's page when it came under extremely heavy vandalism attacks on November 30th, 2009, from numerous anon IPs in an extreme case of sock puppetry used to make personal attacks. Although other editors assisted in the reverting, you stuck with the page over a significant period of time, as the page history shows, until the page was ultimately protected. I thought you deserved some recognition. Keep it up. Outback the koala ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the help. I was starting to worry about a 3RR violation if someone didn't help me. This guy's been listening to too much Beck/Limbaugh. Thanks again. -- Manway ( talk) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you really mean to insert this content? [5] . Off2riorob ( talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Your addition there has grown on me as being excessive, to start with the section title, of assault allegations was excessive and I went to trim it for weight and I took some content out and looked at the citation and it just appeared of no value and in the end I removed it again, I hope you are ok with this, I have also discussed it another experianced editor who suggested this position also. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, mookie and the lawyer were socks of COM, so things there will be quiet, COM was only there wanting to remove the so called assault story, I was approched by an editor with the opinion that COM was right and it was excessive and I trimmed it and then it just seemed worthless, we are not bound to follow google activity, the press have a desperate desire to report anything that will titillate and sell papers, we don't and in the lifelong biography of this person this press stimulated non event is not worth inclusion, I also feel to remove the other disputed comment that is a bit isolated and unexplained about his teams being in the top ten fouling teams, this is in need of explaining and to do so would give the whole issue undue weight. As regards Bios of living people it is best imo to always err on the side of caution, thats what I do, regards. One of the things I found to be rewarding was to take someone you really dislike and to defend their bio from attack. Sorry to rant on, these comments are not related to you, I am rambling in general. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your comments there. Would you like to join the current discussion? Pkeets ( talk) 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to intervene. That guy's way-overreaction suggests that he's a wacko, so I reckon I'll let him have his way with the article. For now. 0:) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
would you please have a look at the Industrial Dispute and Muck Up Day sections and give an opinion. Archifile ( talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI the user User_talk:Realitylogger72 seems to be a new user and doesn't understand why his edits to the Troy Garity article are being reverted and keeps forcing them back in. He has made lots of unexplained reverts. I have brought it to the of the admins and we seem to be making some small slow bit of progress. Just so you know what's going on. -- Horkana ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
All things considered, I think Proofreader should stick to poetry exclusively. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:PeshawarPat. Thank you..— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the latest additions to the talk page on this article. It is clear there is a hoax going on one way or the other, but I am not sure I can tell which side is the hoax. -- KenWalker | Talk 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove my Obama edits. They have been discussed and they follow the prose rules. There are quite a few prose violations in the article. If you have ideas, leave them at the talk page, don't go about doing things without discussion. Thanks. JB50000 ( talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
However, obvious vandalism and low quality edits, like "he's not liked by others" can be removed without talk page discussion, like you did. JB50000 ( talk) 06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Links on the Featured Article page.
No fact is added. When facts are added, often there should be a talk page discussion. Please do not be opposed to prose improvements. Is the Obama article so dysfunctional that we even have to discuss grammar? JB50000 ( talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was kicking around the idea of removing it again but didn't want to skirt 3RR. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about 3RR so I will sign off for now.
Don't say I am going against consensus. There is NO consensus. Bobblehead says one thing, I say something similar, DDK2 says something different.
My edit has the latest and most comprehensive reference. The Christianity reference is flawed because that is just a general chart, is older, and has mistakes (making it unreliable).
Why is that article such an argument over the simplest and logical improvement? JB50000 ( talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to apprise you that Proxy User reverted your removal of the content to this article challenged under WP:BLP as vandalism. I reverted that and addressed the characterization of vandalism in my edit summary. He's charging censorship. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I introduced a totally new point today, that the source use was flawed. This new idea prompted the change. In contrast, another editor just changed it back with no discussion, no explanation. I am being the constructive editor.
If the other editor explained it well or found a better source, then I give them credit. Just reverting it back is completely unconstructive.
My edits is just to be more specific, not to be vague. Otherwise, we could say that Obama is a president of a north american country. That would be true but not specific enough. JB50000 ( talk) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
please don't revert me I would just like to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.45.28 ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I saw that and thought someone was trying to be my Doppelganger. I reverted him and suggested reading the FAQ while not breaking up other editors posts. I'm thinking it's not the last, or first, we've seen of that particular editor. DD2K ( talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I struck through my comment. I am sorry if my comment stirred a simmer to boil. I did not notice that more than a week had passed without comment. I was trying to help by encouraging focus on the issue. I realize now that my input was contra indicated. -- 75.4.215.55 ( talk) 00:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added non-libelous well sourced and actually quite minimal references to the incident in question several times. While a certain editor claims some sort of consensus was reach not to include this relevant, notable, and well sourced material, no such consensus was reached, and in any-case, a consensus to remove relevant, notable, and well sourced content is not legitimate. This is called censorship. I have no intention of "striking through" my comments, unless I am forced to, in which case I will of course note with my comments that I was in fact forced to against my wishes. I think instead of focusing on me, you should be asking why a certain editor has taken WP:OWN of the article, and is without foundation accusing everyone who objects to his views as being "bullies" or making "attacks". This type of behavior is certainly ungentlemanly, unfriendly, and just unpleasant. Are you threatening me with some sort of administrative action if I don't alter my comments to please your views? You request sounds more like a demand. Proxy User ( talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with starting a new section is that this other guy who is invested in this past (and largely nonexistent) "consensus" will simply continue harping on that point. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! The past is the past. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! Proxy User ( talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Good grief! "Going against me"? I'm not taking it that personally. In any case, please do not in the future provide me with "personal advice". My points are valid, and I have no intention in backing away from them. Have a nice day! Proxy User ( talk) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dayewalker, it seems your report about Bikeric's edit warring on the Moveon.org article was deleted. DD2K ( talk) 23:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be discussion. ANI is just proof that you want to escalate the tension and are combative. Try cooler measures. JB50000 ( talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I put it in ANI for you. Unlike you, I respect the sanctions page. You will notice that I have focused strictly on the issues and picked neutral issues that improve the page. This was after there was a complaint against me on the sanctions page.
This combativeness is bad. Why can't there be genuine article improvement rather than insisting on a flawed product? 05:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 ( talk • contribs)
I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry about that, Dayewalker; I was watching the discussion and hit Rollback instead of previous. I fixed it - sorry again : > Doc9871 ( talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I created it to bug her, I was just saying I wasn't trying to be secretive, as she accused me of being. — Chowbok ☠ 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As you commented on the ANI thread, I have narrowed discussion to an support/oppose section, so if you could please post whether it is one way or another there, it would make things easier.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I might as well say thanks for you trying to stop the edit war between me and Mserard313. You'll probably become a good admin someday. -- TIAYN ( talk) 09:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please desist in your disruptive editing. You will be reported and blocked if you continue. FalsifiableTheories ( talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Be careful he's been on wikipedia for nearly 3 1/2 weeks and already has 19 edits. He could get you in hot water (which wouldn't be so bad this time of year). ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. Clearly, his comments in the Firing Line debate, which you do not dispute, are hardly an isolated example of his belief that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography. JohnScott2 ( talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I did leave it on the talk page as well. His testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s is separate from the 1993 quote. We can't use old sources that deal with a person who has had a long public life? Old articles from Time, the New York Times, etc. are now available through their Web sites. What's wrong with citing them for BLPs, especially those who have had long careers? I have no objection to adding a note that it's unknown if his views are the same or has changed. But he did say them, and it seems relevant to his career in the ACLU (which is briefly covered in the entry). JohnScott2 ( talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand but the link for the Houston Oilers takes you right to the Tennessee Titans page. The Oilers link is better by itself because it brings you right to the part of the page for the Oilers. Thanks Carthage44 ( Carthage44) 18:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
I see you're in a category about "Admin Hopefuls". I wonder if I could start a category called "Admin No-Hopes", a category (with myself as charter member) encompassing all those who never on God's green earth have any prayer of ever becoming an admin. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ ( talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I took the week off and cooled my jets. I apologize for my previous edits and plan to follow the rules in the future. I can now see that it doesn't matter how correct you are if you do not follow the rules. I have done as you instructed and added to the discussion on the MoveOn.org article. This is your chance to voice your wisdom for all to review. Lets see if you really are admin material. Bikeric ( talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I was removing the report because it is one of bad faith, by a user with a full history of doing so. I was making changes to the article, and generally he didn't agree (because I am mormon, and makes it well clear he dislikes that) so he intentionally attempted to pass off my edits as "vandalism" and attempts to frame me for it. I have support from another administrator btw, [12] who supports that my edits were correct and not vandalism. Routerone ( talk) 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I restored the personal info on the article and added some sources(since there is almost no sources on that article to begin with) as well. Feel free to add more sources. Good day Xsyner ( talk) 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like an explanation of why you reverted my changes to the Tony Danza page. Thank You 66.188.187.54 ( talk) 08:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at his recent edits, and there's no need to report it--this is a textbook WP:DUCK case. He shows up five minutes after all the vandals were blocked and the article was semi'd, and almost two years after his last edit? Unless he can explain this exceptional timing, he'll stay blocked. Blueboy 96 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my User page - I see the vandal is blocked now (I'll be watching when the block is lifted). -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog ( talk) 13:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(Cmts of banned user stricken, section left to inform them about their rights to email OTRS.) 97.120.246.46 ( talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I reported him/her to AIV and Materialscientist block him/her for 55 hours as of a monent ago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on an iPhone at the moment, and due to the limitations of Safari, I can only respond at the beginning or at the end of a thread, but not in the middle. So, this is a response to your reply on ANI: Wikipedia needs to grow up. The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die. Instead of indefinite blocks, we need a new set of user rights. If we don't want GoRight editing a set of pages or even main space, it should be easy to remove those rights while at the same time, allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site. We need to be teaching editors how to be better editors, and we should have this as our ultimate goal. We do not need to continue fostering the roleplaying game mentality that the noticeboards encourage. GoRight is a capable editor, but he is here for the wrong reasons. If he is willing to be here for the right reasons, he should be given that opportunity. Viriditas ( talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhawk of Justice. Thank you for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Have replied to your comments on my talk page. 74.178.230.17 ( talk) 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[13] Once again, you charge in to my rescue. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can we get your opinion again on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Brittny Gastineau, part the third? Right now it is three against one (and currently my side has the larger support). I'm trying to be nice by pointing this out to you because we have been at loggerheads before. I think the new version added by Reswobslc is a much better version than what I had been adding before and should be included. 128.104.truth ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your edit to the Queen (band) page.
If you're a fan of Queen or interested in helping expand articles related to Queen - or both, have you considered joining the Queen WikiProject? We're looking for new, active participant to help out with the improvement of articles and working towards ambitious goals, such as getting the currently GA-standard Bohemian Rhapsody article to featured status. If you have any degree of time and experience to put into any Queen-related articles, we need you!
Thanks in advance for reading and considering this. :) TheStig t· c 08:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you got involved here, and I'm curious as to a possible relationship between Jack Merridew/A Host of Proven Socks and Eudemis, who appears to be a SPA sock to me that somehow slipped under the radar here. Very curious indeed, especially with the recent problems between WHL and Merridrew? Look at Kathleen Battle's history for starters... Doc9871 ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Sorry and thanks. That's the trouble with browsing on a mobile device. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! I really appreciate it :) HarlandQPitt ( talk) 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to annotate the Coffee article talkpage with that observation. He is editting and reverting the article. I cited him for 3RR on a user talkpage. MookieG thinks he understands 3RR but I don't think so. -- Morenooso ( talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed the abbreviation "UK" to "United Kingdom" at Queen (band). I'm just wondering what your thoughts are regarding this. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 04:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quickly fixing this edit blooper. [14]. :) Malke 2010 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This [15] is vandalism and should be reverted with twinkle and a warning left on the user's talk page, which I have done. Simply reverting doesn't alert the editor to the behavior. Cheers. Malke 2010 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit here
[17], please don't cross-post warnings and comments from other pages. If you'd like to start a discussion on something on the page, please start a new section. Good luck!
Dayewalker (
talk)
01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The posts are relevant to The Game article so I moved it there. Shall I post it at the very botton..I put it in its current place for chronological order. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 ( talk) 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dayewalker, 1)jack posted
this to me It says refactoring is okay.
2 Why when I tried to respond to jack it did not work
69.138.165.244 (
talk)
01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Dayewalker, I read your edit summation. What is DIFFs Please look at what I did, is that alright 69.138.165.244 ( talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I went to the Martin Luther King Jr Day article, and I was looking at the old revisons, and I saw that he THOUGHT THAT MLK DAY WAS IN FEBRUARY! I knew he wouldn't reply. LOL. I was just leaving it there for EVERYBODY ELSE TO SEE! LOL. And the Celtics SUCK!!!! LOL. YouTubeaholic2009 ( talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment---altho personally I feel the content of talk pages deserves a lot looser regulation than that of main articles. The main concern on the article page is how we appear to the public, whereas on the talk page it is how we appear to (and behave toward) each other. If you actually have the above goal (discussion of the article, not discussion of the subject)for talk pages, I'm afraid you have a huge, huge task ahead of you, at least going by what I've seen in just a few hundred talk pages I'm more familiar with. Personally I think paying more attention to quality article pages is a better use of time than trying to root out possibly inappropriate content in the talk pages. Jakob37 ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
She seems to be back (prematurely). Check it out... Doc9871 ( talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know why you deleted Oreste Herrera from the Notable alumni section of Monsignor Edward Pace High School. Oreste Herrera is a Msgr. Pace Alumnus from the class of 2004 and he is truly a waiter at T.G.I. Friday's. At T.G.I. Friday's, Oreste Herrera has achieved many valuable distinctions, including four employee of the month awards. He is also the all time leader in positive comment cards at the Dolphin Mall location in Miami, FL. Legend has it that during a strong flu season in South Florida, a large part of the staff at two local T.G.I. Friday's locations were ill. While many of his co-workers were suffering from the common cold, Oreste Herrera and his incredibly strong immune system were left unscathed. Oreste Herrera was some how able to simultaneously serve tables at two T.G.I. Friday's locations without receiving any complaints. These achievements should be honored and he should be considered a notable alumnus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 ( talk) 05:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
there is no longer a criticism section to discuss, so its irrelevant to keep beating a dead horse here. its gone. get over it. i will remove my comments from wikipedia if i want to, you have no control over what i chose to post and dont post here, so dont re-add my comments after i've deleted them or delete my comments for me please. please don't be difficult about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trichard2010 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant that the progressive talk show Young Turks is named after racist perpetrators of genocides. The reference is important and inappropriate. It is equitable to if a crew lead by a Glen Beck were to call his show "Young Nazis" and the idea that a Young Turk is decent nomenclature is a ruse. I don't have a special thing to sign on with and I linked the page to a legitimate and historically accurate and well respected website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.65.68 ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Greeting Dayewalker - thanks for keeping an eye out. IOU1. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I've quoted you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, could you please read the LAPD report and then revise the MacArthur Park melee article? LAPD admitted responsibility for the attack on the peaceful crowd, demoted the responsible officers, and paid the largest settlement in LAPD history to people who were attacked and injured by the police that day. It's not really controversial: they admitted fault and took serious steps to remedy their mistakes. They say it was due to a 'breakdown in communication.' The point is they should never have attacked the crowd, and they say so. Here's the LAPD report: www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Final_Report.pdf. After you read it, maybe take a pass through the wikipedia article to more accurately reflect what happened. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 ( talk • contribs)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You can watch the movie to see the flaws! tuco_bad 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Isn't the 3 revert rule for: no 3 reverts in a 24-hour period? tuco_bad 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure what EENG is, but he's targeted all our articles for templates in a kindof vendetta thing. I don't know Watson, but Dr. Fuster actually added GNU language to his site, which was the only copyright problem. Had Watson given a Newbie a few days, this would have been resolved, which is all we asked for. From our trademark practice, I see nothing wrong with what Doc Fuster has agreed to put on his site, but Watson says the law has nothing to do with Wiki policies, which are supposedly stricter than case precedent. Don't get this, but if he's someone important, I suppose we should accept it. We're trying to get help on the actual admin board and another editor is helping mentor us with the EENG situation. We will not give up on Doc Fuster, and will eventually recruit enough editors (above board) who know his background in Neuro to help us get an article back up. We can just do the work, and then give it to a more senior person who can not only judge it vs. policy, but also be much tougher for EENG to spam. Dr. Fuster is a legend in Neuro, and other Wiki pages now point to an orange nothing as they did before we tried this. We don't know him personally, but he was very nice in sending us extensive bio and reference info and links from unassailable, peer reviewed/juried sources like SCIENCE and NATURE. I wish Watson had put this to a vote, or at least given us time to fix it. Best... Phoenixthebird ( talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but when someone is born in 1930, the web (circa 1989) misses a lot of good references, which the principal can steer us to. As long as we can verify the reference, does it really matter who "pointed" us to the original source? This guy has 2,000 references in his PFT Text alone, and has published hundreds of scientific articles in the top journals worldwide for 40 years. We actually did have many references from Google and other sources, which were all deleted when Watson blew the whole thing away. We were adding them madly but I guess the clock ran out. That's not to miss your point-- I'm also of course doing wide and deep searches independent of the subject for each article, but if we're being honest, who knows the sources better than the subjects? Thanks for helping educate me on the process here. Given that we have no relationship with these guys, there's no promotion involved, but again honestly, we wouldn't pick a subject unless they were notable and above reproach in the first place, just like Perry Mason never picked a guilty client! ;=) Phoenixthebird ( talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Dayewalker,
We meet again. I went on Brightstar's page to see something that I fixed and I see that you edited it. I work at Brightstar and I changed the Operating income because i know it was incorrect. Their operating income is approximately $175 million. You have set the operating income to $3.5 billion. If you knew anything about business or accounting, you would know that operating income is always lower than your revenue. An income statement goes as follows: Revenue - COGS = Gross Profit - Selling, General, & Administrative Expenses (Operating Expenses) =Operating Income + Interest Income - Interest Expense +/- Non-operating income (expense) = Income before taxes - Income Tax Expense =Net Income
Please change this back to $175 million and please do not track all of my changes. I know I made a change before as a joke, but most of the time when I make a change on Wikipedia I am making it to improve wikipedia. Every change that I have ever made on Wikipedia is factual, even the change I made as a joke (the alumni I added to Msgr. Pace is a true alumni and that is his employer). I like Wikipedia a lot, I am a regular user and have recommended the website to many friends. I have also made donations to wikipedia in the past. My intentions are not to destroy wikipedia's product in any way.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 ( talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Brightstar is private corporation so they are not required to publish their financial information. You will not be able to find their financial statements anywhere on the internet. I am also not allowed to upload their financial statements. The $3.5 billion operating income you have on there is not accurate. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for a company to have a higher operating income than their revenue. Operating income is Revenue minus Cost of goods sold and S,G,& A Expenses. What is posted on there is not a fact and cannot be from a reliable source. You have also changed the key people on the page as well. The key people can be found on Brightstar's website under About Brightstar, Corporate Governance, Board and Management team. Please go to their website to verify this information so that you can revert that change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I do work for Brightstar as I mentioned earlier. I am a financial analyst at Brightstar so I have access to the company's F/S. The changes I made to the Key people section are also all correct, you can verify these managers on the company's website. Most of my posts have been made from my home, today is the first time I have posted something at work. The waiter gig was factual, the individual I mentioned is an alumni of Msgr. Pace and is a waiter of T.G.I. Friday's as well (although it was posted as a joke). I did lie in the story I wrote on Dayewalker's page a few months back about the incredibly strong immune system and how he worked at two restaurants at once (which is obvious and was made on a talk page, not an actual encyclopedia page). I do not have a username with wikipedia. I have been using wikipedia for many years but I rarely make any changes. A few years back I made a change on the "efficient market hypothesis" page as I have done a lot of empircal research on the subject. Besides that, everything else has been in the past few months.
One thing I want you guys to note as it seems like you guys are not accounting/finance people, OPERATING INCOME WILL NEVER BE HIGHER THAN REVENUE! Revenue is the total amount of money received for goods sold or services provided. I will give you guys an example. Let's say company ABC manufacturers widgets and sells them for $10 each. Let's assume these widgets cost $4 to manufacture (COGS, which is Direct Labor (the labor of the employees working at the plant) + Direct Material (the raw materials used to create the product) + Manufacturing Overhead (any machinery or other misc costs involved with creating the product) and that the company spends $3 a unit on Selling, General, and Administrastive expenses (marketing expenses, salaries of sales and administrative staff, utilities, etc.). If a company sells 10 units, their revenue will be $100, their COGS would be $40, their Gross Profit would be $60 (60% Gross Margin), their S,G,&A expenses would be $30, and their operating income would be $30 (30% operating profit margin). Operating Income will NEVER be higher than Revenue. As I mentioned earlier, if I do make a change on Wikipedia, 99.99% of the time it will be factual and should not be reverted. I am a big fan of Wikipedia who has made many donations to this website in the past. I am not trying to destroy wikipedia, I use it several times a week and I love wikipedia's product.
Doc, I would also like to know why this post is not "factual". This post was not intended to state any facts or as an educational reference for a particular subject. This post was created to discuss with dayewalker why he reverted my change. It is simply a conversation with Dayewalker to back up my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Doc, just saw the link you put up. I have never been to that website before. The two sites are virtually identical. Their information is incorrect. Please see my accounting example above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The Paul Warberg thing wasn't me. I had actually never heard of Paul Warberg before. Let me finish up a few things here at work, I don't want to stay here much later and I will go home and analyze this. You have me worried that maybe I have a virus on my home computer now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you typed in topic on purpose or not, but that IP is obviously Sugar Bear evading his site ban. Just felt the need to clarify things.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dayewalker. The newest IP is from England so it may be a meatpuppet or someone who knows how to manipulate their address. The odd thing is the commands that they are adding to the references which completely fouls up the page. I am not versed enough in wikicommands to understand what they trying to do. Thanks for you vigilance in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you ever going to answer my question?— Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits to these pages (see talk page for both articles), but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 ( talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including
Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
![]()
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters ( talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC).
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You said when I return - I thought I'd give the wiki community a go, but have decided it's not for me. I made a very minor revert on a minor article in a failed attempt to improve the article and add referencing (which there is none in the whole article). No prior talk discussion was raised on the removal of content. It seems that no contact was made by those who had removed content to contact the primary contributors - in order to improve their contribution. No attempt was made to contact Subject Matter Experts on (Association) football, the British TV shows mentioned, or the comic book - to understand the significance or otherwise, of previous contributions. The focus seems to have been for one member (MarnetteD) to make block reverts to my attempts at reinstating and improving content. When this did not work, he has enlisted you and others to continue his systematic targeting of the talk page which has focussed on false representation of subjective opinion as "fact". I am interested why you didn't report MarnetteD, who made the initial "revert", and a subsequent 6 reverts - is it because you have taken a biased and unsubstantiated view point based on the fact I am new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker, I had already posted on the previous person who undid my supposed unreferenced changes to the page, and in fact had posted the reference and explained this on his talk page. I had also gotten this stuff approved on the blp board yet why does each person come & undo changes, that are sourced & completely accurate? This page has become skeletal because of this and the correct data thats referenced from third party author bio written about her is correct. It seems when I undo something after explaining then someone else comes and undoes it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)
(cur | prev) 19:11, 4 October 2010 Dayewalker (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (Rmv Copyvio.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:55, 4 October 2010 Nobelone (talk | contribs) m (2,135 bytes) (Undid revision 388509800 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) it was reference see ref list on page) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 18:24, 3 October 2010 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (unreferenced etc) (undo)
The info that you undid was from a third party bio and is referenced as its supposed to be which the previous person said it was unreferenced- though I even added the reference to the page under references. Its not an infringement on copyright as you put when you undid the changes, the article isn't copyrighted either. All of this info about her is accurate and correct and I had already gotten approval after numerous ppl undoing my accurate edits. How can I keep these on without this happening? Please advise as I am trying to do this the correct way, but it seems to still not work everyone comes and undoes. Please help, thank you kindly Nobelone ( talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Dayewalker, I saw yout note written on Hullaballoo talk page. I went back & read the copyright rules, and even though the author article written was not copyrghted and I had copied and pasted in error doing it this way. I apologize I know now this is not acceptable. I correctly just added some simple bio info to page now not infringing on any copyrights. And as the page has a marking for additional third party references I did source and add the author bio written on a book website and will add any additionals I find to help support the page. Please let me know if there is any problem as I did not copy and paste anything this time from the author bio. Thank you Nobelone ( talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
That one just about crashed my computer. Thanks for reverting. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
Please discuss before creating edit wars. Be able to dispute it with sources, since I have verified this to be accurate. You need to see the entire article and citations on the matter. I composed at least 80% of Hammer's page, so I know a little something about the subject. Thank you. P.S. The article is about sampling in general and I gave examples to improve the article. I don't hide my IP, since transparency is important to me when making "good faith" edits. Because Bolton did more of "remakes" than samples, I agree to remove the info about him. Let's conduct ourselves the proper way on here and not continue to revert without resolving disputes the correct way first. Have a nice evening/day. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, was going to remove the user page post but you beat me to it. I have slow internet connection tonight and that is part of the delay with me posting everything at once such as I did last night. I am not staying online, just clearing this up. Will return later if needed to resolve. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Because it's my understanding that if it's not vandalism (which it's not), then it should remain until it's agreed by editors that it doesn't belong via the discussion page. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Update: I take blame in placing the info I added in the wrong "section(s)" perhaps. It's been moved now. But when I - or someone else - put(s) so much effort into an edit, especially when fighting with weak Internet at the time (which isn't your fault), it defeats the purpose of my/their actions. Perhaps making corrections to edits instead of "generic" reverts would be advantageous in the future. Just a suggestion, since it's bothersome to "redo" every thing that was undone over minor mistakes that could have been resolved easier because it didn't get discussed first before being removed. I trust this has been a lesson for us both!? (sigh/smile) I don't want to be right, I just don't want to waste my time. I realize that many admin/editors aren't consistent on the site, and that can add to the frustration. Take care, 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
![]()
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
|
Greetings, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Gui--
Cleaghyre (
talk) 22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)--
Cleaghyre (
talk)
22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)ld of Copy Editors|Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors]] invites you to participate in the
November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You can start discussion. I need not ask for consensus. I edit facts. You have arguments against say it, no problem - it will start discussion. Right? :))))) Do not push others to empty work, it looks smart for you but is nothing more than bouncing others. -- Cleaghyre ( talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you attempt to terrorize me. Read argument and provide con-argument:
This is my work:
You work - first enter
You complain: “No one else understands it.”
Do not talk for others
Anyway it is you personal fault you do not know and avoid read historical facts. Well, if you like to understand follow links in my editions at "Constitution" article. You can also in US or other English speaking country watch documentary movie: "French Revolution" - this is American work. There you can find what means what. Where come from goes: Democracy, Republic, Equality the idea that country belong to people; how Constitution was written and why. What is the difference between the new fundamental act and the old understanding of the world.
Constitution is foundation of democracy, written on the base of ideas of Enlightment, it is top achievement and base of modern world.
‘’’Stop threaten and terrorize people. Educate yourself and use arguments. Learn from others.’’’
Here is something from you favorable rule:
You did no edition, no improvement just reverting - reverting is no edition. You also did not start the discussion on talk page. And I did not found a reason why you did not and assume it is my duty? Are you really serious? -- Cleaghyre ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats ![]()
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
Please check the "Discussion" section of the "John Amos" article, I left a comment. This issue has been discussed for a while, and most people here agree that this is a valid addition to the article. I request that you stop your reversions; your "politically correct" position is not correct (nor is it appreciated).-- 67.109.178.2 ( talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to mention I replied to your question on this Quentin Letts RFC. Sorry for chasing this up, but it's bothering me a little that "subject complains publicly about some Wikipedia vandalism on his article, so we can re-add that vandalism in quote marks with a source, lol" has had so little RFC movement over the past two weeks. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)=
I modified and reverted the information on the ambulance. As a photo indicates $275.00 would have been to low a price. Busceda ( talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, once again, I find that my police of not editing articles about living persons proves true. They are so packed with POV pushing that I find it rather useless to edit articles about living persons. You have now confirmed this again for me. I hope you have a great deal of fun in continuing to sanitize the McCain article and whatever others you may be working on. I'll remove the article from my watch list. I'm really just sick of all the sanitizing that goes on Wikipedia. Enjoy your victory. Calicocat ( talk) 04:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It is regarding you last act on article 'Constitution'
Write it better do not remove a sentence which lead to clarification. The article is complete mess. It need improvement. You action is just an offence.-- Cleaghyre ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. I see here is more people who see yo actions offending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleaghyre ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't "please", you just mindlessly revert, in a distorted feeling of "neutrality" and "keeping the encyclopedia in order". Your actions, contrary to what you want to believe, are fully unreasonable. I had the right to remove what I removed. Sigh... Well... Keep up the wrong job, instead of adding to Wikipedia (or deleting from Wikipedia) something actually useful (or harmful).
Ban me if you will to. (But not before you add my signature to this yet-signatureless edit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.152.66 ( talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, you didn't read the exchange with me and another editor in which I obtained credible sources before publishing a contribution. You made multiple errors. You reverted the corrected contribution, not merely a republishing. You also put back in place comments which were an advertisement for the company by a clear public relations writer or stockholder. Mtl1969 has history of running promotions for mostly Unilver companies mixed with other articles. It appear they are doing PR work or have an interest. Either way please slow down, read, and go through the article and correct your removal. Read the comments on the request for assistance page to you. The Peta organization is currently criticising Lipton Tea and now Unilever the parent company and the coverage is on many Vegetarian and Green sites including one of the Discovery channel's websites citing it for cruel animal testing as a means of bolster it's healing claims. The only thing you are correct on is that the heading for the comment should not be titled Controversy as that is a broader adjective. More typically used is the title Criticism. Please feel free to correct that. The article has editors asking for assistance in removing the blatant advertising. You ignored that. It is important that you take the time to look at what you are contributing to and not react too quickly which you did. Please go back and read the promotional piece you left in place, and realize you censored relevant and reletively new content which is what makes Wikipedia better than a stale old Encylopedia book. Thank you for your attention to the article in it's entirety. Do not be too swift when people are taking their time on a meaningful contribution. Happy Holidays to you. -- WikiShares ( talk) 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, I responded to Wentomowameadow's talk page. In summary you missed the request from a the editorial assitance request, to add new sources. They exist, you missed them on google, and they are in the article you deleted. Go back and READ down the page to the source. I reference the Discovery channel's Planet Green )same url btw not a different one, click on the website and notice it is Discovery. The second is a Vegetarian site, for another point of view. Both green and vegetarian sites are confirming the existance of criticism over animal testing for bolstering tea claims at Lipton. You must read what you claim does not exist. Patience, and you will find it is there. Slow down a bit and undo your edits based on no credible sources. Thank you for reading the full corrections, it should clear up the matter. -- WikiShares ( talk) 07:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Why did you remove my post on the Talk:United States and state terrorism? I am trying to establish there has been a lengthy effort to work with someone who essentially has this page on lockdown. I have seen this practtice before on other talk pages, indeed I copied the template. V7-sport ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Sorry, I will not revert your addition. There's no point in it. Frankly, some of your other edits have been blanking and vandalism, and personal attacks. I'm trying to help you not get into further problems here. I can't quote you any policy other than common sense, so if you'd like to ignore that, go right ahead. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker -- I recently filed an RFC regarding the "Definitions" section of United States and state terrorism, and have no plans of doing anything with it until the RFC has run its course. I was just in the middle of improving the section on Indonesia when the page was locked. Since V7-sport has gotten his way, and the section is still up, I doubt he'll be doing anything either. So I don't think the block is doing any good. It's simply preventing me from improving the article right now. Is there any way that you could talk to someone about getting the page unlocked so I can do more work on the other sections? Or did you have other reasons for locking the page besides just the definitions section dispute (i.e. were you more concerned about conflicts on that page in general?). Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker -- I am the Brandon Gerson that was referred to in http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/4002-cult-poker-personality-brandi-hawbaker-found-dead. Brandi's mother, who she had been estranged from for over a decade has repeatedly tampered with and placed inaccurate information on this page. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this to me. I am confused as to whether I some how prove my authenticity, if that would make a difference. If so, please advise how to do so. I lived with Brandi Hawbaker the last 2 years of her life. As I was privy to Brandi's life and background, there is of course much I can offer to her wiki. I am just uncertain in terms of how to cite or prove information that I know to be factual about her life, background etc. Thank you again for advising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, when you refer to secondary reliable sources, please elaborate. There other other notable poker players (that are included in wikipedia as well) that know me personally and can also validate myself and information that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you commented on this AfD today and mentioned that you believed that sources outside the wrestling industry are necessary. I have added a reference from the New York Daily News that backs up the statements that had been made by wrestling writers. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at the article and comment on whether or not the article (and, in particular, the "Impact" section) now meets the general notability guideline. Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying dude many people (Including me) still believe some crop circles aren't hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrator ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for helping out--are you sure you want to get involved in this? The poster was put back again--note the editor's other edits. You're dealing with a newbie carrying a grudge, I believe. Oh, the image you removed, it came to be misnamed by an even more hapless and grudge-carrying editor, here. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So, by how many personalities are you split??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone should stop it's you guys... trying to alter the past and present???? Hablador ( talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI , Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Thanks.-- CutOffTies ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. ![]()
![]() So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can
sign up now.
We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators – S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), The Utahraptor Talk to me, and Tea with toast ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
for this. -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The tagger isn't a member of the project it seems. Dougweller ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What's your preferred venue for reporting - 3RR (for edit warring), AIV (for vandalizing user pages and unwillingness to discuss substantive edits), or ANI (for above behavior and personal attacks)? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
...for removing the tag from The Stanley Clarke Band, didn't want to do it myself. I'm actually going to nominate it as a good article. J04n( talk page) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your point on an SPA occasionally editing the Trinity Christian Academy article: I dropped a note about the RfC on the talk page of the user who most recently removed the material. It got added to my watchlist because I created the page. This morning I noticed that there's also an entry on my watchlist "Tca admin (talk | contribs) created new account User:Jstewart2011". Tca admin edited the article (and nothing else) yesterday but was indeffed for having a bad username. Is there anything we need to do about this? Brammers ( talk/ c) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I am trying to add the whole issue on 'twat' in the Maher article and you have reverted it twice. I am just referring to the source and you seem to disagree with the edit. Rather than keep going on this in the article itself, would you mind helping me address the issue? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperliner ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pushed back the non lead hope is agreeable. Hope to have your assistance with major edits attempting to made without any reasoning at all. Theres been major discussion on this page previously and this seperate from the fact that there sources arent valid. Emetemet13 ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible to rewrite when users like Ravpappa do it without anyone saying it is correct i did put it in the discussion Please be balanced
Abigail7 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abigail7 (
talk •
contribs)
16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You deleted my entry without any discussion, based on your personal opinion of triviality. How about discussing it on the topics talk page before you do so. Embram ( talk) 09:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for watching vandals on the article Bonita Vista High School. Your efforts assist locals, like me, by assisting efforts by those who wish to reduce the quality of articles in Chula Vista.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No talking until you guys stop removing valid content! Please give me specifics and we'll see what needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwwinter ( talk • contribs)
Hi Dayewalker, I want to add this part back in to Michael Frost Beckner. I checked all of the references and as far as I know, they are all legitimate. I've checked other screenwriter pages on Wikipedia and am trying to figure out why there has been so much dispute about Beckner's page... Here's what I want to add, but before I do, I don't want people to delete it so I thought I'd check with you first. Tell me what to fix and I will!
Michael Frost Beckner is an American screenwriter, novelist and creator of popular film and television works. His filmic themes, at their core, explore the dramatic conflicts in the allegorical father and son relationship ( Spy Game, Sniper). He is a "mixed- genre" storyteller whose works update classical genres with modern sensibilities. Beckner is widely recognized in the sub-genre of espionage storytelling [1], which has led to various high-profile television writing and executive producing assignments ( The Agency and CSI). A number of his real-world story lines have eerily predicted actual future events. [2] This has led to speculation about the true depth of his relationship to the international intelligence community. [3]
From late 1989 to mid 1991, Hollywood was setting records for the price paid by production companies for film scripts written on "
spec" (not commissioned by a studio).
[4] Still in his mid-twenties, Beckner, with his producing partner Jim Gorman, held two of the top ten spots for the highest prices ever paid for spec scripts up until that time.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
At the time, Beckner said, "I don't enjoy the spec ride. I'd rather be writing than waiting for the phone to ring. We were flattered we got as much as we did." [5] Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 ( talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the reference in the Lowell Bennion book stating that he started the "Utah Boys Ranch" not the "Teton Boys Ranch." If it's not too much trouble, can you tell me what page number you found your reference on? Thanks! -- EarlySquid ( talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an exact quote of the Wikipedia article, which used the other source (Bennion's biography) as a reference. As I stated on the talk page, Bennion's biography does not say that he started the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy and actually puts him in Idaho from 1962 until the 1980s. -- EarlySquid ( talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked him, had not noticed his attempts at engaging in discussion. Thank you for the heads up. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did you show up to defend the vandalism of Weazie? It doesn't make any sense to allow people to take things out of context as an excuse to delete sources, no matter what they post on a discussion. Simply posting something within the discussion should not be a pass to do what you want! I don't understand why you would defend such a thing unless you have some sort of ulterior motive behind it. Sempi ( talk) 08:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Beckner is married to former vice president of film aquisitions at Walt Disney Studios, Anne Sterling. [6] Beckner has five children: daughter Ally, son, Andrew, daughter, Daisy, and twin sons, Benjamin and Theodore.
Thanks! If I need to fix anything, please let me know! I'm still getting the hang of this! Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)purpleambrosia23 Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker! Check out the new user box available at User:Adwiii/UBX/Golem1. Thanks for helping with the reverts. I have blocked the health club for a month. Regards, -- Diannaa ( Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a Request for Comment concerning Sempi ( talk · contribs). You can find it here. I'm notifying you personally because you are mentioned in the RFC/U as someone who tried in vain to get Sempi to improve his conduct vis-à-vis the Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution article. Since you were a user who tried and failed to resolve this dispute, you might wish to consider adding your name to the list of users "certifying" the RFC/U; at least two formal certifiers are required in order for an RFC/U to proceed. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you readded to the Carl Levin bio's lead, info about how long he had served in the Senate (which is already included in the boxes under his photo), and when he became senior senator. I wonder if you think this is important for Carl Levin, would you consider it important for the other senior senators too, and wonder if you would consider taking the time to include the comment in for other senior senators also. That way there is a just a little bit more consistency, and not an attempt to promote. Thank for your partnership in making Wikepedia a great resource. Rodchen ( talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're looking for someone to take SuperMarioMan out and shoot him, probably not; made me smile :) -- Errant ( chat!) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Try it!
I've responded to your Slap Bet foolishness on my talk page (and will delete the thread within the week) but have now accommodated all of your criticisms so that there are no further grounds on which you can "Rvt." the Slap Bet page! Thanks for playing! --- Tjprochazka ( talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, I was moved to share this with you after reading your recent concerns on the notice board about the fellow who had taken to using his talk page as a grudge list in which yourself was featured. First off, thank you for all the work that you do for wiki on such a regular basis. With that said, I have taken the time to review several screens worth of your contributions and I would like to offer this impression of what someone uninvolved gets from the sidelines. Honestly, your RVTS and edit comments can come across a bit harsh or patronizing, also a review of your contribs can skew more towards the critical as opposed to the contributive. As I said, thanks for all your work, so I hope you dont take this personally, I am offering it as a fellow editor, perhaps if you could submit more material and orig research and bring the proportions of your critical entries and content entries a bit closer. Now this is offered as a observation, not a warning of any kind at this time. All the best! BespokeFM ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah Big Country..... and yes you are correct, only 3 MSEs since april. You see after 15 years of marriage I went through a split this past year, and while I did get the dogs, I did not get any, and I mean any, of the online accounts. I ended up Kissing goodbye to a decade's worth of involvement on numerous sites including Wiki. On the bright side, at least I no longer get taken to task for things a much younger me did and said at the turn of the century. Now just to be safe, please do not give Demiurge1000 directions to my talk page as I have grown quite fond of the recent lack oversight or accountability much less splatter! Thank you for taking the time out to consider my thoughts, all the best, and get back to work! BespokeFM ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
To prevent your blockage, I highly suggest not practicing hubris when reverting or editing articles edited by other users, and to find out exactly what "Original Research" encompasses. Please take a moment to review WP:NOR policies. Edit-wars are pointless and collaboration is highly expected of all Wikipedia users. A fact is a fact, and your perceptions of what "POV" and "Original Research" are, as valued as opinions go, moot to the facts therein. Thank you very much, and if you can find a way to collaboratively resolve this issue, that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my comments. Rather than edit warring your changes in, why don't you discuss the matter on the article's talk page? That's the best place to get further opinions. Dayewalker ( talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing I think we can both agree on when we step out of the shells of this mortal coil and this trite debate is that life is absolutely amazing.
Even you've got to admit that from an unbiased persepctive the analogy is pretty complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 ( talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I am glad you respect what I do for the sports area that I edit on Wikipedia. I was making the 2011 MLB Draft page complete since there was 50 rounds not just 1. If you have any advise or if you could help by voting to *keep* the work that I was doing on that page. Thanks again. Carthage44 ( talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The proper procedure to follow is outlined in WP:DRNC Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". thank you. BE TA 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
why did you remove my wiki edit? i will keep posting it untill one of us gibes. the info i added was important to the topic. only allowing one sided views for people to read without reasoning as to why the original article is not well rounded is called what? being a nazi of course, which is what the article is about. please do not remove the edit, it is important info. mike godwin doesn't even deserve a page for godwins law. there's no reasoning behind the behaviour of his law. all he did was notice what people do and stated it as fact. let's ask the entire line of questioning.. who, what, when, where, how, and why. he only stated one of those, not all. if you are intent on edeting out my info, then please tell me how i can make a counter page to that very narrow idea and link it to the idea itself.. let's not all live in a nazi world man
Kakeroo (
talk)
18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
So many editors, including yourself, are patiently reverting the sockpuppeters vandalism on the Clan of Xymox page. This has been going on since April already, when the page was first re-unprotected after the multiple-sock puppetry attacks of knowitallfortoday. Isn't it time to re-protect the page instead of having to revert the same vandalism every few days while the (very mobile/ traveling) puppeter keeps at the same old thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.58.157 ( talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! It seems you've made a neutral !vote at this RfA. However, it may be mistake, as it doesn't seem to talk about Qwyrxian. Was it a mistake, or should it be there? Hey Mid ( contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, as well as your help dealing with the excessive drama brought on by the canvassing. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. -- BE TA 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
My edits are factual. Please stop erasing them. Thank you. The Uber Mensch ( talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not really helping because you disrespect me like Edward by placing the comments under photographes area after I posted instruction to tell users to place comments in Comments area so I guess you are not doing a very job because you made me more anger. Encyclopedia supposed to be reading, not being playing. I am not appericating that you disrespect me like him. I am not liking any Wikipedians who have no common senses and intelligence. Culby ( talk) 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your comment here. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been closed at this point and a not left on InExcelsisDeo's talk page.
- J Greb ( talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you should look up the rules again. There was a flag on the article stating it was one sided. 2. I stated it was something I saw as an eyewitness which is allowed. Same thing as you need to take the picture your self, not someone elses. If you revert again, I will assume you just don't believe and are interfering with a balance view on the article. Please don't do do thing unless you quote a specific rule back to me and show me a reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 ( talk • contribs)
I need to ask out of my own curiosity. Do you have something personal against this man. It looks like you spend a lot of time editing his article. I would just like to know what is up with the amount of time you seem to take supervising this specific article. If you don't mind me asking. I want to believe you do not have something personal against this person but I need to ask because I see the time you spend on it.
As for me, I just went to a service and saw a miracle and wanted to talk about it. My motivation is simple, I love to talk about the things God does.
akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank You. I was not aware there was a problem. I totally agree with you actually that your beliefs as well as my own should not play a role but I felt I had to ask and I appreciate the response.
So if we hold to wiki's rule that you quote, (just for my future reference, not that I want to labor this issue any longer) If I saw person x healed of something, would doctor's records of before and after suffice? What I saw, was amazing, a burn victim whose flesh was damaged on her legs to the point that the muscles and flesh were basically missing, restored. I was about two feet away, when he began to pray, I bent over and stared at her legs and I saw her legs reform flesh. I also saw a women with tumors all over her stomach disappear. It would be impossible for it to be deception, I was too close, I was just about as close as he was when he prayed for these people. I never saw anything like it, I was amazed. I saw lots of things in my 52 years that could have been faked but this would be impossible. I know, not being there, you will think I was crazy or it was a trick or something, but I am 100 percent sure there is no way it could have been "fixed". It was truly the power of Jesus, there is no other explanation and because I was so awestruck, I wanted to include it. That's all.
It was something to see. I have no idea what this guy WV Grant did in the past, I just know what I saw.
Thanks and take care...
akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Those changes that were added to the Kansas State University page were approved by members of the K-State athletic department. The University President wanted changes to be made to that page specifically and not to the Kansas State Wildcats page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcruz15 ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Per User talk:71.125.131.122, I already did bring it up on the talk page. There was no response, so I assumed the community agreed with me per WP:SILENCE, despite the recent changes patrols who tend to revert every anon edit. 71.125.131.122 ( talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Made me smile, and I don't get much smiling from WP. Perhaps I can find a Barnstar for that. Regards, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy!
If these 'koekjes' were in the BB house, I'm sure Rachel would eat them all!...B7.. Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concern — about my being a blocked editor. Feel free to have an administrator block my IP immediately. It's no big deal. 108.52.30.154 ( talk) 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I put my reasons for removing Peck entry in Discussion section. You didn't see it? Zakor55 ( talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Wiki editor Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?
Briefly:
Article currently states:
"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"
This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiography, Monsieur Le Ministre.
Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.
Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?
Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver ( talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If you check "The Finale (Seinfeld episode)" discussion page, he's really taking it personally. He's fighting to have the dialogue "Jerry, I've always" included, I'm trying to say "let's right it another way without using the line". I can't seem to break the deadlocked. Well, after learning what's consensus and critera from Seinfeld discussion page, I'm worried he might go over the line. Basically he's just saying "readers need to know as the plane went down, Elaine is meant to say "Jerry, I've always loved you" then near the end of the verdict, it's "Jerry, I've always loved United Airlines" as a joke. As a last resort, I'll ask you to get the dispute resolution going if he continues to press on like it's so important as there is a downside to this.
Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Daye, several days ago I attempted to engage with you concerning the aformentioned article, even providing you with a timeframe and inviting you to contact. You choose not to respond, but instead removed my message from this page with no comment, or imput on the article or more solid reasons for your edit. I took this as a clear sign that you did not wish to discuss the issue, and had moved on.
Instead you blindly revedited my forewarned action in a unilateral, and subjective fashion after failing to take advantage the opportunity to discuss and reach a consensus together within a generous timeframe.
As I told you I would, after time expired I replaced the review. Then you revedited it with no contact to me, attaching a sarcastic and personal view origined comment/argument that had no place on the history page. If that was your argument, it should have been made on your talk page, or my talk page or the article discussion. If you remove again it without a attempt to reach consensus and engage in discussion, you will run the risk of being reported for edit-warring and possilbly getting a temporary block. I know I dont have to tell you the rules.
Please understand, I have a tremendous respect for the amount of work you do for wiki, but that work does not provide you with free license to ignore the guidelines of good faith editing, consensus, and discussion. Not to mention civil behavior. Please take this as a opportunity lift your game to a even higher level. If this type of Arbitrary behavior was not out of character for you I would not have reached out in the first place.
If you cannot see this in the constructive light that it is offered, perhaps we might need to engage other editors or senior editors to maintain a civil and positive discourse.
Hope we can clear this up, and look forward to hearing from you. BespokeFM ( talk) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is a invitation visit my talk page. I think that there is a lot that we could discuss concerning edits, content and philosphy.
As my page has much, much, much smaller traffic then yours, I think that might allow each of us the chance to speak frankly on these subjects without making a more public spectacle.
I hope you will accept, all the best! BespokeFM ( talk) 06:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please revert your undo, and discuss this issue on OhNoitsJamie's Talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhproofer ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Kumkwat. I think that about sums it up. :) Srobak ( talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
It is obvious by the lack of information avaliable about religious persecution and the fact that it dosn't have its own article as opposed to be a part of a larger article that it is not notable. This does not mean that discrimination and/or persecution againist african traditional religions dosn't exist but in the same way I don't see other native tribes on their ex. persecution of native american or aboriginal faiths. I do however welcome you to expand it. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am going to assume good faith and come to the conclusion that you havn't looked at much of the history for the page of "Romance film". I have tried to add it into its own subsection but it has been taken down over and over again. I added it in the lead section because of the fact the other person said it didn't fit as a subgenre. There are several really great LGBT romance films. http://reviewfix.com/2011/01/our-ten-best-gay-romance-films/ http://www.amazon.com/2011-Best-Gay-Romance-Movie/lm/R2K5Y7YLZCYR1L http://listverse.com/2008/07/22/top-11-great-gay-interest-movies/ http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/collections/gayAndLesbian/gLRomance Do I need any more lists? Most (of course not all) LGBT films involve some form of romance between the characters. Now if you want me to rephrase it then fine but my point is that not all romance is between heterosexual or cisgender people. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I read
WP:OVERLINKING. I dont feel
Leah Remini is overlinked. The words that are linked are relevant as they are her most famouse roles and characters. The linked terms do not make the article hard to read. The linked words are apart from one another, some are in the intro, early section, career sectin.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that
Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.
I think once mention per section is fair, how about you?
Also, why is
Monica Gellar linked when this is the wiki article about Leah Remini? Those links should be delinked.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - please do not revert my closures on my talkpage , thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - pl;ease don't misrepresent me - "- When the admin understandably took offense Rob became upset " - this is false and please do not replace it -
Change your own comments if you object but please do not falsely portray my position -
Off2riorob ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Going through an RfA can be stressful, especially when people start asking loads of questions. So I want to apologise for adding to your burden by asking question number 15! I have no doubt that you are a well meaning Wikpedian who is doing good work. My concern is your lack of clarity regarding the content adding issue. I suspect this is due to the stress of the situation, and that you are being pushed on the question, so are struggling to make your views known.
Over the years quality content creation has become an important element of consideration in an RfA. However, people who have added little or no content have still gone on to become admins. People look at the strengths of a candidate. You highlight your strengths for people, and are honest about your weaknesses. A fully rounded candidate is rare, and they tend to become admins with no opposes. Almost everyone else gets opposes for some weakness or other. If the weakness are many, or are serious, then the opposes will outweigh the supports. But if the weaknesses are few, not serious, or the candidate can show awareness of their weakness and give a strategy for how to deal with it, then the supports tend to carry the day.
Content addition is not your strength. I think you need to be honest and open about that, and either say that you have no interest in content addition because your skill set is in vandal fighting, or that you are aware that content addition is not your strength, but you plan to do something about it, such as creating a new article and getting a WP:DYK, or working on an article to get it listed as a Good Article.
As you have an interest in Boston Celtics, take a look at Boston Celtics all-time roster. There are some red links there. You could start articles on one or more of those players. Such as Don Eliason. Use info from here, here, here, and the books here. If you need any help, please let me know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, you're a well-meaning, hard-working editor, and I really want to support your RfA, but your answers to the optional questions are frustrating me greatly. You keep either hinting or outright stating that you have some content creation experience (e.g. "I can add content, and have done so in the past on occasion" in your answer to question 15) but you won't tell us what it is! You've gotten at least three questions asking you this directly (not counting question 2) and you still won't tell us! SilkTork above even suggested the exact words you could use: "I have added (fill in the blank)" and still, you say you've added content, but you won't fill in that blank. I apologize for intruding on your talk page like this, but as I say, I speak from the perspective of an editor who wants to support you, but is currently not being given enough information to do so. 28bytes ( talk) 05:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Hi, Dayewalker. I've been watching the opposes pile up with sadness. There's 4 days left and it's probably still too early to tell, but if the negative trend continues, you may want to start to consider withdrawing. I think you're prime adminship material, but the RfA community has a knack for latching onto certain issues, as you can see. If your RfA isn't successful, don't take it personally. Many of our best admins failed their first RfA. Just take the opposers seriously. Cut back on your involvement on the "dramaboards". It's ironic, but ANI involvement is typically a bane to RfA candidates. Get some content experience under your belt— get involved with GA or FA or heck, just create some decent articles. I just went through an RfA and I'd only created a single start-class article. Not a single oppose. Lastly, anticipate potential questions, and take as long as you need to think about them so you can give the best possible answer. There were quite a few in my RfA where I read the question, and slept on it, or thought it through for a day before answering it. Do this, and I think you'll easily pass an RfA in six months or so. I'll even co-nom. :) Sorry if this is something of a defeatist comment— this advice is certainly better suited for someone whose RfA has already been closed, but this was on my mind now and I didn't want to forget. Best regards, Swarm X11|11|11 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Your RfA "essay", heh, was freakin' awesome. Best wishes to you. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 04:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
A few random, garbled thoughts from me:
That's all for now. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some good to come out of this. I'm going to have a think and might post a new section at WP:BN. But please don't be dismayed by the RfA. I've seen plenty of ultimately great admins fail first time, often because of the way they presented themselves at the RfA, rather than real concerns about their contributions to the project. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, if Swarm wants to co-nom, I'll nominate - in six months time when you have written six lousy stubs that are little more than an infobox about an unknown reserve kicker in Goalpostistan. You've got mail.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This kind of retrospective analysis is another reason why I stand by my comment on your RfA that you'd be "huge net positive for Wikipedia" as an administrator. If you ever decide to run again, I'll be sure to support you. Good luck for now. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report
![]() We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
You almost won. Wrightwood906 ( talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
Invitation from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
![]() Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{ GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna ( Talk), Stfg ( Talk), and Dank ( talk)To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dayewalker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Invitation from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there. I see you've left a note on User:Carthage44's talk page for things in the past. The Adam Dunn article has edit reverts accredited to said user. The user does not seem to discuss much or look to build consensus. A few of us were wondering if you might have any advice. We'd like to avoid blocking any one particular user but at the same time avoid what seems like ownership of a particular article by one contributor. There is vested interest in contributing to the article but I'm afraid some of the contributors may start to lose interest if all they encounter are edit wars. Any info. you could share or advice would be much appreciated. I'll check this page for updates. Zepppep ( talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
Dear fellow wikipedia editor or administrator,
Greeting to you my fellow contributors and friends. I trust that you are all well and in good health and spirits.
I am a continued and consistent user of our open contributor forum. I have edited several articles and have worked with each of you in at least one or two instances. My most contentious edits and requests have been Jose Baez's birthplace and The Capeman BLP.
As you can see, I have continued to use my anonymous IP address in place of a regular user id or moniker. This is a personal choice and one that I most likely will continue.
My reason for contacting you is I request your assistance and input in relation to a BLP that I believe has the potential to continue to draw a very large number of readers and potential editors and others. The article in question is Adele, the singer. The article has many inconsistencies and errors contained within it. The article has been locked down and several edits reverted that have 1) validicity and potentially correct/new iinformation 2) Absolutely no talk page entries or discussion taking place whatsoever and when someone does use the talk page it is ignored or easily dismissed without a single opinion or answer to the person proposing the discussion.
I must state that I have personally not made one change to this article at all! I feel it is important to state I have no knowledge of this BLP subject whatsoever. In fact, I know nothing about her other than what is contained in the article itself. and the cited references contained within. My only contributions to anything regarding the subject is to the talk page for the article and a registered editor's user talk page.
My first entry was dated May 11, 2012 when I contributed to the talk page detailing specifically the inconsistencies within it and at the least opening a discussion and at the most requesting article editing. I also included one or two small constructive suggestions to hopefully clear some confusion I experienced in the article. No additional discussion by anyone was offered at all. (It was like I was the only one who knew that a talk page even existed). My next entries were 7 days later. and true to my mo, I become contentious and somewhat aggressive in an attempt to provoke any response whatsoever.
I am a constructive user and sometimes editor in subjects that I know are correct and I possess the knowledge and information to challenge constructively. I must apologize for my contentious tendencies and state once again I am nearly always a reasonable and fair person.
My problems with this article is outlined in the talk pages. The claim that the vandalism is persistent, I must question this as I see no persistance, nor a reason for an editor to assign a 4 month lockdown. Also, currently the last edit has reverted causing the removal of an inclusion that this artist is a pop artist when the article itself states this fact in a number of paragraphs and references within it.
I only request that you please offer a little time and review the article, talk page and recent edits and reverts. I would not ask this of you, if I did not know that this article was in need of such drastic assistance. In addition, due to the huge fame of this artist, I believe this article should really be helped by those I know are fair, just, caring and competent to the wiki community.
I have also requested the assistance in the wiki chat portal this morning outlining my concerns there as well. Unfortunately, I have much less confidence in that forum than I can say I do have in you all. The only response that I really received was nearly a dozen users immediately exited and left after stating the facts as I have here.
Any and all assistance and aid you may render, I am sure the wiki community will be the better for.
Best regards always.
Mark R (anonymous ip) 65.8.151.206 ( talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please advise me of how exactly any of this article can be sourced.... I have attempted to put in links but they all go thru Facebook.... which if you don't use it, you can't verify it.
I took out a lot of the needless "naming" of the families and just presented facts. I would imagine you are a player? If so, you already know all of this. Wjmummert ( KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi could you do me the favour of taking a further look both at the article and the and give your opinion here if this information belongs in the article or not. It seems to me as if it's over focusing on Fiscers anti semitism with trivial details but his antisemitism is already refereed to plenty in the article.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks [1]! — Kralizec! ( talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 ( talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to issue me that warning, please review the other users talk page and issue the same, for consistency. User_talk:Toddst1 -- DoyleCB ( talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The user above is a sock of User:MascotGuy. Checkout the userpage for a link to the Long term abuse page. I've submitted several requests for a block.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was filed the 3RR complaint on user:Niex05at the same time. Do you have experience with SPI complaints? Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there - I reverted your removal of the ridiculous rant by User:Professionresearchharvard over at ANI. While your reasons were fine, it is generally bad form to delete material at ANI. It is actually useful to the community to know of the actions of users like this, particularly when they use ANI to launch a personal attack (a DUMB thing to do, trust me). Regards Manning ( talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know if you are a dreamhost customer.
I've assumed good faith in the past regarding you but realizing that you're practicing Wikipedia:Hounding with me and chasing me through this website for no apparent reason I ask are you in fact a Dreamhost customer? And could you please stop viewing my contributions.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(OD) My contribution history is public, and available here [3]. I haven't commented on Bobby Fischer in quite a while. We've both been active on the Dreamhost article, so it would stand to reason that I would also watch the discussion at Arbcom. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(Moved from user page) If you dont mind, may I ask why you follow me around reverting my edits? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 ( talk • contribs)
You reverted a change in Wikipedia space on the basis that it was an unsourced change. However, sources are only required for articles, not the policies, guidelines, and essays in Wikipedia space. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see statements such as "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). The Verifiability policy applies mainly to articles (although it could be applied to false or dubious statements elsewhere, especially statements about living persons).
My impression of the change from Wall Street Journal to Washington Post was that it was an unnecessary change, but didn't hurt anything. If you think it was better with Wall Street Journal, you could revert. Your preferences for how the text reads are as important as anyone else's. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) I'm always ready to thank users who reverted edits from a vandal who vandalized my page. Impala2009 | Talk 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(moved from user page) If Keith Olbermann said that he does not wear horn-rimmed glasses, would you believe him? Mdriver1981 ( talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain your claim that YouTube is not a reliable source. I posted something linked to YouTube and you removed it. Since it featured Keith Olbermann himself, how is it not relevant to an article on him? Seeker alpha806 ( talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just recieved this from you: Do not harass wikipedia editors, as you did here [1]. If you disagree with another editor's edits, please take your discussion to the talk page of the article for further comments. This editor is not the only one reverting your edits, so consensus is against you as per WP:EL. Threatening him will not help, so please take your concerns to the proper forum.
There was never a threat of any kind, simply a request to have his (and your) supervisors contact info as we have proof of his abuse and bias in regard to external link deletion. We have been intentionally tracking and watching him for a few months and have numerous documented situations that proove these aligations. Matter of fact .. you can go back to the last deletion he did 'Anita Blond' and see where he first deleted instantly with the explination "spammy link that leads to a fake fansite, either way not appropriate", then he recieved our email and quickly went back to delete his comment after realizing he was wrong about both statements. He has now completely deleted the 'external link' section of Anita blonds page and is obviously not fit for this position.
This needs to stop Wikipedia-- GlobalCorp Media ( talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand policy better than Daedalus, he won't stop even when asked to.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You've been a regular contributor to the article on the Crips. Would you mind giving your opinion on this WP:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips? Thanks. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do you suppose it's any of your business? Radiopathy •talk• 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note, since it's obvious what you're doing: if you revert this again, you will likewise go to WP:AN/I for wikihounding. You have no right to get involved in a retaliatory content dispute. Radiopathy •talk• 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks D Dub. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list. -- Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: George Carlin's religious faith Allowing a statement to stand that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith is not a neutral statement as the information provided is from a potentially biased source, George Carlin himself who has in fact clearly demonstrated his anti-Catholic bias, and he has provided no supportive information that verifies his family's regular attendance at a Catholic church, for example, nor whether he was actually confirmed in the Catholic faith - a critical determination as to whether he actually completed his education in the Catholic faith. The addition to the article in this context: "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" therefore makes the sentence far more accurate and less speculative than the sentence is without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk • contribs)
Carlin may have been Baptized into the faith, and may have received some education in the Catholic faith, millions of people do, but writing that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith clearly implies that he completed a Catholic education expected of an average church member. This must remain a speculative and therefore a potentially misleading statement as we have no indication as to whether he completed his Catholic education. Only his confirmation in the faith would demonstrate this and this article provides no formal, or for that matter even any reasonable informal support for the claim. If the statement "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" is to be removed, then the statement "and was raised in the Roman Catholic faith" should also be removed or at the very least revised to remove the implication of Carlin having completed his education in the Catholic faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you appreciate the discussion on this issue but must clear up a point on what was meant by 'Catholic education'. First, completing a Catholic education means that one has taken sufficient Catholic Catechetical instruction to receive ones 'Confirmation' in the faith - which, by the way, is also a Catholic sacrament - this is not related to whether one has attended a public or Catholic school or not, as millions of Catholics have never attended a Catholic school, while in some areas, many non-Catholics have no choice but to attend a local Catholic school for expediency reasons. The implication of the statement 'raised in the Roman Catholic faith' would therefore have to mean that one has at a bare minimum, been confirmed in the faith, and not whether one has been schooled in a Catholic school, if it is to be an accurate statement. One could also reasonably add that it would also mean that one's parents actively participated with the child in matters related to faith - i.e. attending church on a regular basis, receiving Catholic sacraments together, etc. - but we can put that issue aside for now. Finally, you acknowledge in your response that you have no idea whether Carlin completed his Catholic education and that you "have no source to back it up". While you appear to have meant his Catholic schooling I would think that you would also have concede that you also have no source to back up whether Carlin was sacramentally confirmed in the Roman Catholic faith. If this is the case, then that would mean that the current Wikipedia statement on the issue is misleading, and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 ( talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker; thanks for your helpful comment on my talkpage. The following is CCed from Kralizec's talk page; he left me a stern warning after my post today at AIV. I just want to say thanks for reminding me to just walk away cool-headed. Nimur ( talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Hello Kralizec!. I just wanted to reply to your message to me. I was not attempting to disrupt anything; I am not sure who is a sockpuppet and I don't really care to find out. All I know is that my talk-page was attacked, and I hoped that the AIV would make it go away. Perhaps this does not count as vandalism; I leave that up to others to decide. We've had trouble with these users on the Reference Desk, evidenced by this discussion last week - where I was the chief negotiator to end the disruption; and we really hoped everybody could be mature. All I want is to contribute to the Reference Desk without a hassle. Sorry if my request at AIV was viewed negatively. I'll CC this to fellow administrator User:Dayewalker, who left a helpful comment at my talk page. Thanks, Nimur ( talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"
Thank you for your diligence in monitoring and reverting recent disruptive editing to this article. Dealing with the repeated unexplained deletions of sourced content and unsourced POV insertions by apparent COI editors had worn me out and was souring me toward contributing to Wikipedia. Certainly trying to maintain this article's integrity took time away from other articles to which I would like to have contributed. I had made a report for edit warring but it was deemed stale and I gave up. To my pleasant surprise, other editors such as you and admins took notice and appropriate action. I see that your goal is to become an admin. I would certainly support that goal from what I have seen of your contributions. Regards, OccamzRazor ( talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:) . . . Just so you know I wasn't trying to imply you (or anyone) on the page was "Big Media" or trying to "whitewash" the event; I was just being sarcastic with regards to a comment "cat" had made to me implying that.
I already got warned for that... and I re-added the comment with more civil wording and a small suggestion improvement... xx Pastel kitten ( talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This bug should now be fixed. Let me know if there is still a problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The comment on the talk page which is being removed has always bothered me, as it seems offensive and outside the normal scope of a talk page. I understand that a sockpuppet may be removing it, but this seems to be a case where allowing the removal to stand, may be a benefit. Would you object if I removed it? Regards, Kablammo ( talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stay out of other people's discussions. If you want to discuss my perfectly legitimate suggestion that the railfan page is deleted then please start a separate discussion with me.
Thanks
Ding Dong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingdong12 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
See
Well, related to typography, there are several articles and images missing. You can see all the red links in List of fonts, and blank spaces (where there should be an image) in Samples of serif typefaces or Samples of display typefaces or Samples of script typefaces, etc... The goal of the collaboration is to upgrade and improve all those things. If you go to the collaboration page, you will find further information and open tasks as well as instructions about all this. That´s basically all. This is a personal request for help in a task here in wikipedia. If you´re interested in collaborate, go ahead! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
then click on the link here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fonts
then look up Hobo (font)
I only followed instructions to try to create articles with red links. Just because Hobo is a funny name does not mean deletion. Hi Balloon Boy ( talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
is there anything you can do about the Brittny Gastineau article page? User:128.104.213.238 has said they will continue to edit war to add unsourced quotes and undue content back into this blp article. Even the one user who was kept adding it back (Spidey104) has finally stopped adding it back because they content was reworded by another ip user (not me). User:128.104.213.238 has said they'll continue to edit war to add the content back in to "keep the truth out there". this is all over a quote from the Bruno movie Brittny appeared in. I get a new IP every time I log on to my isp provider so 128.104.213.238 thinks I"m being a sockpuppet (untrue because Im not acting like different users and have admitted that it's not my fault that i have a rotating ip) [4] and can contiue to add back this content because they claim I'm being deceptive. Can you help pelase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.17.48 ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Dayewalker, please see the discussion section of the Marriage article before you change the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above in regards to the last threads on the talk page? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I wish for you to comment on the threads on the talk page concerning the lead.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above's talk page in regards to the last threads on the talk page about the lead? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Revised the edit to the motto to make it more acceptable after you deleted it, emphasising the endearment towards the college rather than to berate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.53 ( talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to go to Chris Rush / First Rush. It looks like a 3RR might happen there. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Pole shift hypothesis#"See also" links response on talk page to keep it all together. I see your point but there is logic behind the millenium links. Granite07 ( talk) 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(OD) Everything stated above is your opinion, which you're welcome to. I don't share it, the opinion of every wikipedia editor is equal whether they're an IP or an admin. Those opinions are against you now, and your edit war board complaint has been rejected, thus showing there was no edit warring from opposing editors. Good luck with mediation.
Outdents are commonly used at wikipedia to keep discussions readable, I made my comments in reaction to the earlier topic so they should stay there for proper context. Dayewalker ( talk) 09:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dayewalker, I appreciate your contributions to the Steve Gaines (pastor) page, but I wanted to address some of your additions to the "Handling of Minister Misconduct" section. This section is by far the largest section for the biography, but only a small section of Gaines' life. I believe that this section is given undue weight. Also, the third party criticisms, although sourced, are not encyclopedic material. These are outside opinions that are not balanced. I believe this sections should remain factual, and not skewed. I am not requesting we remove the section, just the third party criticisms, because they are not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyMemphisNative ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank for this one. That barnstar must have made me careless. Favonian ( talk) 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I value your opinion. Could you check on the section regarding waterboarding on the talk and post yours? Thanks for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the entire section on the talk page, accusing him of plagiarism, is a BLP violation and should be deleted. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
Thanks for being quick to catch vandalism to my userpage! Keep up the good work 7 03:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
Someone vandalized my Userspace!
I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it!
Thank you! You can thank others by using {{
subst:Vangel}}! --
Meaghan
the vanilla twilight
14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For this bit of tidying up. That's why I never worry about logging off. Someone's always watching :) Tide rolls 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
For your protection of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's page when it came under extremely heavy vandalism attacks on November 30th, 2009, from numerous anon IPs in an extreme case of sock puppetry used to make personal attacks. Although other editors assisted in the reverting, you stuck with the page over a significant period of time, as the page history shows, until the page was ultimately protected. I thought you deserved some recognition. Keep it up. Outback the koala ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the help. I was starting to worry about a 3RR violation if someone didn't help me. This guy's been listening to too much Beck/Limbaugh. Thanks again. -- Manway ( talk) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you really mean to insert this content? [5] . Off2riorob ( talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Your addition there has grown on me as being excessive, to start with the section title, of assault allegations was excessive and I went to trim it for weight and I took some content out and looked at the citation and it just appeared of no value and in the end I removed it again, I hope you are ok with this, I have also discussed it another experianced editor who suggested this position also. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, mookie and the lawyer were socks of COM, so things there will be quiet, COM was only there wanting to remove the so called assault story, I was approched by an editor with the opinion that COM was right and it was excessive and I trimmed it and then it just seemed worthless, we are not bound to follow google activity, the press have a desperate desire to report anything that will titillate and sell papers, we don't and in the lifelong biography of this person this press stimulated non event is not worth inclusion, I also feel to remove the other disputed comment that is a bit isolated and unexplained about his teams being in the top ten fouling teams, this is in need of explaining and to do so would give the whole issue undue weight. As regards Bios of living people it is best imo to always err on the side of caution, thats what I do, regards. One of the things I found to be rewarding was to take someone you really dislike and to defend their bio from attack. Sorry to rant on, these comments are not related to you, I am rambling in general. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your comments there. Would you like to join the current discussion? Pkeets ( talk) 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to intervene. That guy's way-overreaction suggests that he's a wacko, so I reckon I'll let him have his way with the article. For now. 0:) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
would you please have a look at the Industrial Dispute and Muck Up Day sections and give an opinion. Archifile ( talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI the user User_talk:Realitylogger72 seems to be a new user and doesn't understand why his edits to the Troy Garity article are being reverted and keeps forcing them back in. He has made lots of unexplained reverts. I have brought it to the of the admins and we seem to be making some small slow bit of progress. Just so you know what's going on. -- Horkana ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
All things considered, I think Proofreader should stick to poetry exclusively. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:PeshawarPat. Thank you..— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the latest additions to the talk page on this article. It is clear there is a hoax going on one way or the other, but I am not sure I can tell which side is the hoax. -- KenWalker | Talk 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove my Obama edits. They have been discussed and they follow the prose rules. There are quite a few prose violations in the article. If you have ideas, leave them at the talk page, don't go about doing things without discussion. Thanks. JB50000 ( talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
However, obvious vandalism and low quality edits, like "he's not liked by others" can be removed without talk page discussion, like you did. JB50000 ( talk) 06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Links on the Featured Article page.
No fact is added. When facts are added, often there should be a talk page discussion. Please do not be opposed to prose improvements. Is the Obama article so dysfunctional that we even have to discuss grammar? JB50000 ( talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was kicking around the idea of removing it again but didn't want to skirt 3RR. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about 3RR so I will sign off for now.
Don't say I am going against consensus. There is NO consensus. Bobblehead says one thing, I say something similar, DDK2 says something different.
My edit has the latest and most comprehensive reference. The Christianity reference is flawed because that is just a general chart, is older, and has mistakes (making it unreliable).
Why is that article such an argument over the simplest and logical improvement? JB50000 ( talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to apprise you that Proxy User reverted your removal of the content to this article challenged under WP:BLP as vandalism. I reverted that and addressed the characterization of vandalism in my edit summary. He's charging censorship. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I introduced a totally new point today, that the source use was flawed. This new idea prompted the change. In contrast, another editor just changed it back with no discussion, no explanation. I am being the constructive editor.
If the other editor explained it well or found a better source, then I give them credit. Just reverting it back is completely unconstructive.
My edits is just to be more specific, not to be vague. Otherwise, we could say that Obama is a president of a north american country. That would be true but not specific enough. JB50000 ( talk) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
please don't revert me I would just like to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.45.28 ( talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I saw that and thought someone was trying to be my Doppelganger. I reverted him and suggested reading the FAQ while not breaking up other editors posts. I'm thinking it's not the last, or first, we've seen of that particular editor. DD2K ( talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I struck through my comment. I am sorry if my comment stirred a simmer to boil. I did not notice that more than a week had passed without comment. I was trying to help by encouraging focus on the issue. I realize now that my input was contra indicated. -- 75.4.215.55 ( talk) 00:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added non-libelous well sourced and actually quite minimal references to the incident in question several times. While a certain editor claims some sort of consensus was reach not to include this relevant, notable, and well sourced material, no such consensus was reached, and in any-case, a consensus to remove relevant, notable, and well sourced content is not legitimate. This is called censorship. I have no intention of "striking through" my comments, unless I am forced to, in which case I will of course note with my comments that I was in fact forced to against my wishes. I think instead of focusing on me, you should be asking why a certain editor has taken WP:OWN of the article, and is without foundation accusing everyone who objects to his views as being "bullies" or making "attacks". This type of behavior is certainly ungentlemanly, unfriendly, and just unpleasant. Are you threatening me with some sort of administrative action if I don't alter my comments to please your views? You request sounds more like a demand. Proxy User ( talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with starting a new section is that this other guy who is invested in this past (and largely nonexistent) "consensus" will simply continue harping on that point. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! The past is the past. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! Proxy User ( talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Good grief! "Going against me"? I'm not taking it that personally. In any case, please do not in the future provide me with "personal advice". My points are valid, and I have no intention in backing away from them. Have a nice day! Proxy User ( talk) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dayewalker, it seems your report about Bikeric's edit warring on the Moveon.org article was deleted. DD2K ( talk) 23:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be discussion. ANI is just proof that you want to escalate the tension and are combative. Try cooler measures. JB50000 ( talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I put it in ANI for you. Unlike you, I respect the sanctions page. You will notice that I have focused strictly on the issues and picked neutral issues that improve the page. This was after there was a complaint against me on the sanctions page.
This combativeness is bad. Why can't there be genuine article improvement rather than insisting on a flawed product? 05:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 ( talk • contribs)
I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry about that, Dayewalker; I was watching the discussion and hit Rollback instead of previous. I fixed it - sorry again : > Doc9871 ( talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I created it to bug her, I was just saying I wasn't trying to be secretive, as she accused me of being. — Chowbok ☠ 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As you commented on the ANI thread, I have narrowed discussion to an support/oppose section, so if you could please post whether it is one way or another there, it would make things easier.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I might as well say thanks for you trying to stop the edit war between me and Mserard313. You'll probably become a good admin someday. -- TIAYN ( talk) 09:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please desist in your disruptive editing. You will be reported and blocked if you continue. FalsifiableTheories ( talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Be careful he's been on wikipedia for nearly 3 1/2 weeks and already has 19 edits. He could get you in hot water (which wouldn't be so bad this time of year). ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. Clearly, his comments in the Firing Line debate, which you do not dispute, are hardly an isolated example of his belief that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography. JohnScott2 ( talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I did leave it on the talk page as well. His testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s is separate from the 1993 quote. We can't use old sources that deal with a person who has had a long public life? Old articles from Time, the New York Times, etc. are now available through their Web sites. What's wrong with citing them for BLPs, especially those who have had long careers? I have no objection to adding a note that it's unknown if his views are the same or has changed. But he did say them, and it seems relevant to his career in the ACLU (which is briefly covered in the entry). JohnScott2 ( talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand but the link for the Houston Oilers takes you right to the Tennessee Titans page. The Oilers link is better by itself because it brings you right to the part of the page for the Oilers. Thanks Carthage44 ( Carthage44) 18:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
I see you're in a category about "Admin Hopefuls". I wonder if I could start a category called "Admin No-Hopes", a category (with myself as charter member) encompassing all those who never on God's green earth have any prayer of ever becoming an admin. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ ( talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I took the week off and cooled my jets. I apologize for my previous edits and plan to follow the rules in the future. I can now see that it doesn't matter how correct you are if you do not follow the rules. I have done as you instructed and added to the discussion on the MoveOn.org article. This is your chance to voice your wisdom for all to review. Lets see if you really are admin material. Bikeric ( talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I was removing the report because it is one of bad faith, by a user with a full history of doing so. I was making changes to the article, and generally he didn't agree (because I am mormon, and makes it well clear he dislikes that) so he intentionally attempted to pass off my edits as "vandalism" and attempts to frame me for it. I have support from another administrator btw, [12] who supports that my edits were correct and not vandalism. Routerone ( talk) 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I restored the personal info on the article and added some sources(since there is almost no sources on that article to begin with) as well. Feel free to add more sources. Good day Xsyner ( talk) 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like an explanation of why you reverted my changes to the Tony Danza page. Thank You 66.188.187.54 ( talk) 08:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at his recent edits, and there's no need to report it--this is a textbook WP:DUCK case. He shows up five minutes after all the vandals were blocked and the article was semi'd, and almost two years after his last edit? Unless he can explain this exceptional timing, he'll stay blocked. Blueboy 96 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my User page - I see the vandal is blocked now (I'll be watching when the block is lifted). -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog ( talk) 13:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(Cmts of banned user stricken, section left to inform them about their rights to email OTRS.) 97.120.246.46 ( talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I reported him/her to AIV and Materialscientist block him/her for 55 hours as of a monent ago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on an iPhone at the moment, and due to the limitations of Safari, I can only respond at the beginning or at the end of a thread, but not in the middle. So, this is a response to your reply on ANI: Wikipedia needs to grow up. The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die. Instead of indefinite blocks, we need a new set of user rights. If we don't want GoRight editing a set of pages or even main space, it should be easy to remove those rights while at the same time, allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site. We need to be teaching editors how to be better editors, and we should have this as our ultimate goal. We do not need to continue fostering the roleplaying game mentality that the noticeboards encourage. GoRight is a capable editor, but he is here for the wrong reasons. If he is willing to be here for the right reasons, he should be given that opportunity. Viriditas ( talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhawk of Justice. Thank you for your time.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Have replied to your comments on my talk page. 74.178.230.17 ( talk) 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[13] Once again, you charge in to my rescue. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can we get your opinion again on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Brittny Gastineau, part the third? Right now it is three against one (and currently my side has the larger support). I'm trying to be nice by pointing this out to you because we have been at loggerheads before. I think the new version added by Reswobslc is a much better version than what I had been adding before and should be included. 128.104.truth ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your edit to the Queen (band) page.
If you're a fan of Queen or interested in helping expand articles related to Queen - or both, have you considered joining the Queen WikiProject? We're looking for new, active participant to help out with the improvement of articles and working towards ambitious goals, such as getting the currently GA-standard Bohemian Rhapsody article to featured status. If you have any degree of time and experience to put into any Queen-related articles, we need you!
Thanks in advance for reading and considering this. :) TheStig t· c 08:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you got involved here, and I'm curious as to a possible relationship between Jack Merridew/A Host of Proven Socks and Eudemis, who appears to be a SPA sock to me that somehow slipped under the radar here. Very curious indeed, especially with the recent problems between WHL and Merridrew? Look at Kathleen Battle's history for starters... Doc9871 ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Sorry and thanks. That's the trouble with browsing on a mobile device. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! I really appreciate it :) HarlandQPitt ( talk) 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to annotate the Coffee article talkpage with that observation. He is editting and reverting the article. I cited him for 3RR on a user talkpage. MookieG thinks he understands 3RR but I don't think so. -- Morenooso ( talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed the abbreviation "UK" to "United Kingdom" at Queen (band). I'm just wondering what your thoughts are regarding this. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 04:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quickly fixing this edit blooper. [14]. :) Malke 2010 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This [15] is vandalism and should be reverted with twinkle and a warning left on the user's talk page, which I have done. Simply reverting doesn't alert the editor to the behavior. Cheers. Malke 2010 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit here
[17], please don't cross-post warnings and comments from other pages. If you'd like to start a discussion on something on the page, please start a new section. Good luck!
Dayewalker (
talk)
01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The posts are relevant to The Game article so I moved it there. Shall I post it at the very botton..I put it in its current place for chronological order. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 ( talk) 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dayewalker, 1)jack posted
this to me It says refactoring is okay.
2 Why when I tried to respond to jack it did not work
69.138.165.244 (
talk)
01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Dayewalker, I read your edit summation. What is DIFFs Please look at what I did, is that alright 69.138.165.244 ( talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I went to the Martin Luther King Jr Day article, and I was looking at the old revisons, and I saw that he THOUGHT THAT MLK DAY WAS IN FEBRUARY! I knew he wouldn't reply. LOL. I was just leaving it there for EVERYBODY ELSE TO SEE! LOL. And the Celtics SUCK!!!! LOL. YouTubeaholic2009 ( talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment---altho personally I feel the content of talk pages deserves a lot looser regulation than that of main articles. The main concern on the article page is how we appear to the public, whereas on the talk page it is how we appear to (and behave toward) each other. If you actually have the above goal (discussion of the article, not discussion of the subject)for talk pages, I'm afraid you have a huge, huge task ahead of you, at least going by what I've seen in just a few hundred talk pages I'm more familiar with. Personally I think paying more attention to quality article pages is a better use of time than trying to root out possibly inappropriate content in the talk pages. Jakob37 ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
She seems to be back (prematurely). Check it out... Doc9871 ( talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know why you deleted Oreste Herrera from the Notable alumni section of Monsignor Edward Pace High School. Oreste Herrera is a Msgr. Pace Alumnus from the class of 2004 and he is truly a waiter at T.G.I. Friday's. At T.G.I. Friday's, Oreste Herrera has achieved many valuable distinctions, including four employee of the month awards. He is also the all time leader in positive comment cards at the Dolphin Mall location in Miami, FL. Legend has it that during a strong flu season in South Florida, a large part of the staff at two local T.G.I. Friday's locations were ill. While many of his co-workers were suffering from the common cold, Oreste Herrera and his incredibly strong immune system were left unscathed. Oreste Herrera was some how able to simultaneously serve tables at two T.G.I. Friday's locations without receiving any complaints. These achievements should be honored and he should be considered a notable alumnus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 ( talk) 05:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
there is no longer a criticism section to discuss, so its irrelevant to keep beating a dead horse here. its gone. get over it. i will remove my comments from wikipedia if i want to, you have no control over what i chose to post and dont post here, so dont re-add my comments after i've deleted them or delete my comments for me please. please don't be difficult about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trichard2010 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant that the progressive talk show Young Turks is named after racist perpetrators of genocides. The reference is important and inappropriate. It is equitable to if a crew lead by a Glen Beck were to call his show "Young Nazis" and the idea that a Young Turk is decent nomenclature is a ruse. I don't have a special thing to sign on with and I linked the page to a legitimate and historically accurate and well respected website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.65.68 ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Greeting Dayewalker - thanks for keeping an eye out. IOU1. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I've quoted you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, could you please read the LAPD report and then revise the MacArthur Park melee article? LAPD admitted responsibility for the attack on the peaceful crowd, demoted the responsible officers, and paid the largest settlement in LAPD history to people who were attacked and injured by the police that day. It's not really controversial: they admitted fault and took serious steps to remedy their mistakes. They say it was due to a 'breakdown in communication.' The point is they should never have attacked the crowd, and they say so. Here's the LAPD report: www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Final_Report.pdf. After you read it, maybe take a pass through the wikipedia article to more accurately reflect what happened. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 ( talk • contribs)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You can watch the movie to see the flaws! tuco_bad 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Isn't the 3 revert rule for: no 3 reverts in a 24-hour period? tuco_bad 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure what EENG is, but he's targeted all our articles for templates in a kindof vendetta thing. I don't know Watson, but Dr. Fuster actually added GNU language to his site, which was the only copyright problem. Had Watson given a Newbie a few days, this would have been resolved, which is all we asked for. From our trademark practice, I see nothing wrong with what Doc Fuster has agreed to put on his site, but Watson says the law has nothing to do with Wiki policies, which are supposedly stricter than case precedent. Don't get this, but if he's someone important, I suppose we should accept it. We're trying to get help on the actual admin board and another editor is helping mentor us with the EENG situation. We will not give up on Doc Fuster, and will eventually recruit enough editors (above board) who know his background in Neuro to help us get an article back up. We can just do the work, and then give it to a more senior person who can not only judge it vs. policy, but also be much tougher for EENG to spam. Dr. Fuster is a legend in Neuro, and other Wiki pages now point to an orange nothing as they did before we tried this. We don't know him personally, but he was very nice in sending us extensive bio and reference info and links from unassailable, peer reviewed/juried sources like SCIENCE and NATURE. I wish Watson had put this to a vote, or at least given us time to fix it. Best... Phoenixthebird ( talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but when someone is born in 1930, the web (circa 1989) misses a lot of good references, which the principal can steer us to. As long as we can verify the reference, does it really matter who "pointed" us to the original source? This guy has 2,000 references in his PFT Text alone, and has published hundreds of scientific articles in the top journals worldwide for 40 years. We actually did have many references from Google and other sources, which were all deleted when Watson blew the whole thing away. We were adding them madly but I guess the clock ran out. That's not to miss your point-- I'm also of course doing wide and deep searches independent of the subject for each article, but if we're being honest, who knows the sources better than the subjects? Thanks for helping educate me on the process here. Given that we have no relationship with these guys, there's no promotion involved, but again honestly, we wouldn't pick a subject unless they were notable and above reproach in the first place, just like Perry Mason never picked a guilty client! ;=) Phoenixthebird ( talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Dayewalker,
We meet again. I went on Brightstar's page to see something that I fixed and I see that you edited it. I work at Brightstar and I changed the Operating income because i know it was incorrect. Their operating income is approximately $175 million. You have set the operating income to $3.5 billion. If you knew anything about business or accounting, you would know that operating income is always lower than your revenue. An income statement goes as follows: Revenue - COGS = Gross Profit - Selling, General, & Administrative Expenses (Operating Expenses) =Operating Income + Interest Income - Interest Expense +/- Non-operating income (expense) = Income before taxes - Income Tax Expense =Net Income
Please change this back to $175 million and please do not track all of my changes. I know I made a change before as a joke, but most of the time when I make a change on Wikipedia I am making it to improve wikipedia. Every change that I have ever made on Wikipedia is factual, even the change I made as a joke (the alumni I added to Msgr. Pace is a true alumni and that is his employer). I like Wikipedia a lot, I am a regular user and have recommended the website to many friends. I have also made donations to wikipedia in the past. My intentions are not to destroy wikipedia's product in any way.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 ( talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Brightstar is private corporation so they are not required to publish their financial information. You will not be able to find their financial statements anywhere on the internet. I am also not allowed to upload their financial statements. The $3.5 billion operating income you have on there is not accurate. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for a company to have a higher operating income than their revenue. Operating income is Revenue minus Cost of goods sold and S,G,& A Expenses. What is posted on there is not a fact and cannot be from a reliable source. You have also changed the key people on the page as well. The key people can be found on Brightstar's website under About Brightstar, Corporate Governance, Board and Management team. Please go to their website to verify this information so that you can revert that change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I do work for Brightstar as I mentioned earlier. I am a financial analyst at Brightstar so I have access to the company's F/S. The changes I made to the Key people section are also all correct, you can verify these managers on the company's website. Most of my posts have been made from my home, today is the first time I have posted something at work. The waiter gig was factual, the individual I mentioned is an alumni of Msgr. Pace and is a waiter of T.G.I. Friday's as well (although it was posted as a joke). I did lie in the story I wrote on Dayewalker's page a few months back about the incredibly strong immune system and how he worked at two restaurants at once (which is obvious and was made on a talk page, not an actual encyclopedia page). I do not have a username with wikipedia. I have been using wikipedia for many years but I rarely make any changes. A few years back I made a change on the "efficient market hypothesis" page as I have done a lot of empircal research on the subject. Besides that, everything else has been in the past few months.
One thing I want you guys to note as it seems like you guys are not accounting/finance people, OPERATING INCOME WILL NEVER BE HIGHER THAN REVENUE! Revenue is the total amount of money received for goods sold or services provided. I will give you guys an example. Let's say company ABC manufacturers widgets and sells them for $10 each. Let's assume these widgets cost $4 to manufacture (COGS, which is Direct Labor (the labor of the employees working at the plant) + Direct Material (the raw materials used to create the product) + Manufacturing Overhead (any machinery or other misc costs involved with creating the product) and that the company spends $3 a unit on Selling, General, and Administrastive expenses (marketing expenses, salaries of sales and administrative staff, utilities, etc.). If a company sells 10 units, their revenue will be $100, their COGS would be $40, their Gross Profit would be $60 (60% Gross Margin), their S,G,&A expenses would be $30, and their operating income would be $30 (30% operating profit margin). Operating Income will NEVER be higher than Revenue. As I mentioned earlier, if I do make a change on Wikipedia, 99.99% of the time it will be factual and should not be reverted. I am a big fan of Wikipedia who has made many donations to this website in the past. I am not trying to destroy wikipedia, I use it several times a week and I love wikipedia's product.
Doc, I would also like to know why this post is not "factual". This post was not intended to state any facts or as an educational reference for a particular subject. This post was created to discuss with dayewalker why he reverted my change. It is simply a conversation with Dayewalker to back up my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Doc, just saw the link you put up. I have never been to that website before. The two sites are virtually identical. Their information is incorrect. Please see my accounting example above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The Paul Warberg thing wasn't me. I had actually never heard of Paul Warberg before. Let me finish up a few things here at work, I don't want to stay here much later and I will go home and analyze this. You have me worried that maybe I have a virus on my home computer now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 ( talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you typed in topic on purpose or not, but that IP is obviously Sugar Bear evading his site ban. Just felt the need to clarify things.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dayewalker. The newest IP is from England so it may be a meatpuppet or someone who knows how to manipulate their address. The odd thing is the commands that they are adding to the references which completely fouls up the page. I am not versed enough in wikicommands to understand what they trying to do. Thanks for you vigilance in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you ever going to answer my question?— Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits to these pages (see talk page for both articles), but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 ( talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including
Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
![]()
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters ( talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC).
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You said when I return - I thought I'd give the wiki community a go, but have decided it's not for me. I made a very minor revert on a minor article in a failed attempt to improve the article and add referencing (which there is none in the whole article). No prior talk discussion was raised on the removal of content. It seems that no contact was made by those who had removed content to contact the primary contributors - in order to improve their contribution. No attempt was made to contact Subject Matter Experts on (Association) football, the British TV shows mentioned, or the comic book - to understand the significance or otherwise, of previous contributions. The focus seems to have been for one member (MarnetteD) to make block reverts to my attempts at reinstating and improving content. When this did not work, he has enlisted you and others to continue his systematic targeting of the talk page which has focussed on false representation of subjective opinion as "fact". I am interested why you didn't report MarnetteD, who made the initial "revert", and a subsequent 6 reverts - is it because you have taken a biased and unsubstantiated view point based on the fact I am new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker, I had already posted on the previous person who undid my supposed unreferenced changes to the page, and in fact had posted the reference and explained this on his talk page. I had also gotten this stuff approved on the blp board yet why does each person come & undo changes, that are sourced & completely accurate? This page has become skeletal because of this and the correct data thats referenced from third party author bio written about her is correct. It seems when I undo something after explaining then someone else comes and undoes it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)
(cur | prev) 19:11, 4 October 2010 Dayewalker (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (Rmv Copyvio.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:55, 4 October 2010 Nobelone (talk | contribs) m (2,135 bytes) (Undid revision 388509800 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) it was reference see ref list on page) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 18:24, 3 October 2010 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (unreferenced etc) (undo)
The info that you undid was from a third party bio and is referenced as its supposed to be which the previous person said it was unreferenced- though I even added the reference to the page under references. Its not an infringement on copyright as you put when you undid the changes, the article isn't copyrighted either. All of this info about her is accurate and correct and I had already gotten approval after numerous ppl undoing my accurate edits. How can I keep these on without this happening? Please advise as I am trying to do this the correct way, but it seems to still not work everyone comes and undoes. Please help, thank you kindly Nobelone ( talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Dayewalker, I saw yout note written on Hullaballoo talk page. I went back & read the copyright rules, and even though the author article written was not copyrghted and I had copied and pasted in error doing it this way. I apologize I know now this is not acceptable. I correctly just added some simple bio info to page now not infringing on any copyrights. And as the page has a marking for additional third party references I did source and add the author bio written on a book website and will add any additionals I find to help support the page. Please let me know if there is any problem as I did not copy and paste anything this time from the author bio. Thank you Nobelone ( talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
That one just about crashed my computer. Thanks for reverting. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
Please discuss before creating edit wars. Be able to dispute it with sources, since I have verified this to be accurate. You need to see the entire article and citations on the matter. I composed at least 80% of Hammer's page, so I know a little something about the subject. Thank you. P.S. The article is about sampling in general and I gave examples to improve the article. I don't hide my IP, since transparency is important to me when making "good faith" edits. Because Bolton did more of "remakes" than samples, I agree to remove the info about him. Let's conduct ourselves the proper way on here and not continue to revert without resolving disputes the correct way first. Have a nice evening/day. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, was going to remove the user page post but you beat me to it. I have slow internet connection tonight and that is part of the delay with me posting everything at once such as I did last night. I am not staying online, just clearing this up. Will return later if needed to resolve. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Because it's my understanding that if it's not vandalism (which it's not), then it should remain until it's agreed by editors that it doesn't belong via the discussion page. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Update: I take blame in placing the info I added in the wrong "section(s)" perhaps. It's been moved now. But when I - or someone else - put(s) so much effort into an edit, especially when fighting with weak Internet at the time (which isn't your fault), it defeats the purpose of my/their actions. Perhaps making corrections to edits instead of "generic" reverts would be advantageous in the future. Just a suggestion, since it's bothersome to "redo" every thing that was undone over minor mistakes that could have been resolved easier because it didn't get discussed first before being removed. I trust this has been a lesson for us both!? (sigh/smile) I don't want to be right, I just don't want to waste my time. I realize that many admin/editors aren't consistent on the site, and that can add to the frustration. Take care, 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
![]()
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
|
Greetings, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Gui--
Cleaghyre (
talk) 22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)--
Cleaghyre (
talk)
22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)ld of Copy Editors|Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors]] invites you to participate in the
November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You can start discussion. I need not ask for consensus. I edit facts. You have arguments against say it, no problem - it will start discussion. Right? :))))) Do not push others to empty work, it looks smart for you but is nothing more than bouncing others. -- Cleaghyre ( talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you attempt to terrorize me. Read argument and provide con-argument:
This is my work:
You work - first enter
You complain: “No one else understands it.”
Do not talk for others
Anyway it is you personal fault you do not know and avoid read historical facts. Well, if you like to understand follow links in my editions at "Constitution" article. You can also in US or other English speaking country watch documentary movie: "French Revolution" - this is American work. There you can find what means what. Where come from goes: Democracy, Republic, Equality the idea that country belong to people; how Constitution was written and why. What is the difference between the new fundamental act and the old understanding of the world.
Constitution is foundation of democracy, written on the base of ideas of Enlightment, it is top achievement and base of modern world.
‘’’Stop threaten and terrorize people. Educate yourself and use arguments. Learn from others.’’’
Here is something from you favorable rule:
You did no edition, no improvement just reverting - reverting is no edition. You also did not start the discussion on talk page. And I did not found a reason why you did not and assume it is my duty? Are you really serious? -- Cleaghyre ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats ![]()
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
Please check the "Discussion" section of the "John Amos" article, I left a comment. This issue has been discussed for a while, and most people here agree that this is a valid addition to the article. I request that you stop your reversions; your "politically correct" position is not correct (nor is it appreciated).-- 67.109.178.2 ( talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to mention I replied to your question on this Quentin Letts RFC. Sorry for chasing this up, but it's bothering me a little that "subject complains publicly about some Wikipedia vandalism on his article, so we can re-add that vandalism in quote marks with a source, lol" has had so little RFC movement over the past two weeks. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)=
I modified and reverted the information on the ambulance. As a photo indicates $275.00 would have been to low a price. Busceda ( talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, once again, I find that my police of not editing articles about living persons proves true. They are so packed with POV pushing that I find it rather useless to edit articles about living persons. You have now confirmed this again for me. I hope you have a great deal of fun in continuing to sanitize the McCain article and whatever others you may be working on. I'll remove the article from my watch list. I'm really just sick of all the sanitizing that goes on Wikipedia. Enjoy your victory. Calicocat ( talk) 04:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It is regarding you last act on article 'Constitution'
Write it better do not remove a sentence which lead to clarification. The article is complete mess. It need improvement. You action is just an offence.-- Cleaghyre ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. I see here is more people who see yo actions offending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleaghyre ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't "please", you just mindlessly revert, in a distorted feeling of "neutrality" and "keeping the encyclopedia in order". Your actions, contrary to what you want to believe, are fully unreasonable. I had the right to remove what I removed. Sigh... Well... Keep up the wrong job, instead of adding to Wikipedia (or deleting from Wikipedia) something actually useful (or harmful).
Ban me if you will to. (But not before you add my signature to this yet-signatureless edit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.152.66 ( talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, you didn't read the exchange with me and another editor in which I obtained credible sources before publishing a contribution. You made multiple errors. You reverted the corrected contribution, not merely a republishing. You also put back in place comments which were an advertisement for the company by a clear public relations writer or stockholder. Mtl1969 has history of running promotions for mostly Unilver companies mixed with other articles. It appear they are doing PR work or have an interest. Either way please slow down, read, and go through the article and correct your removal. Read the comments on the request for assistance page to you. The Peta organization is currently criticising Lipton Tea and now Unilever the parent company and the coverage is on many Vegetarian and Green sites including one of the Discovery channel's websites citing it for cruel animal testing as a means of bolster it's healing claims. The only thing you are correct on is that the heading for the comment should not be titled Controversy as that is a broader adjective. More typically used is the title Criticism. Please feel free to correct that. The article has editors asking for assistance in removing the blatant advertising. You ignored that. It is important that you take the time to look at what you are contributing to and not react too quickly which you did. Please go back and read the promotional piece you left in place, and realize you censored relevant and reletively new content which is what makes Wikipedia better than a stale old Encylopedia book. Thank you for your attention to the article in it's entirety. Do not be too swift when people are taking their time on a meaningful contribution. Happy Holidays to you. -- WikiShares ( talk) 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Daywalker, I responded to Wentomowameadow's talk page. In summary you missed the request from a the editorial assitance request, to add new sources. They exist, you missed them on google, and they are in the article you deleted. Go back and READ down the page to the source. I reference the Discovery channel's Planet Green )same url btw not a different one, click on the website and notice it is Discovery. The second is a Vegetarian site, for another point of view. Both green and vegetarian sites are confirming the existance of criticism over animal testing for bolstering tea claims at Lipton. You must read what you claim does not exist. Patience, and you will find it is there. Slow down a bit and undo your edits based on no credible sources. Thank you for reading the full corrections, it should clear up the matter. -- WikiShares ( talk) 07:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Why did you remove my post on the Talk:United States and state terrorism? I am trying to establish there has been a lengthy effort to work with someone who essentially has this page on lockdown. I have seen this practtice before on other talk pages, indeed I copied the template. V7-sport ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Sorry, I will not revert your addition. There's no point in it. Frankly, some of your other edits have been blanking and vandalism, and personal attacks. I'm trying to help you not get into further problems here. I can't quote you any policy other than common sense, so if you'd like to ignore that, go right ahead. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker -- I recently filed an RFC regarding the "Definitions" section of United States and state terrorism, and have no plans of doing anything with it until the RFC has run its course. I was just in the middle of improving the section on Indonesia when the page was locked. Since V7-sport has gotten his way, and the section is still up, I doubt he'll be doing anything either. So I don't think the block is doing any good. It's simply preventing me from improving the article right now. Is there any way that you could talk to someone about getting the page unlocked so I can do more work on the other sections? Or did you have other reasons for locking the page besides just the definitions section dispute (i.e. were you more concerned about conflicts on that page in general?). Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker -- I am the Brandon Gerson that was referred to in http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/4002-cult-poker-personality-brandi-hawbaker-found-dead. Brandi's mother, who she had been estranged from for over a decade has repeatedly tampered with and placed inaccurate information on this page. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this to me. I am confused as to whether I some how prove my authenticity, if that would make a difference. If so, please advise how to do so. I lived with Brandi Hawbaker the last 2 years of her life. As I was privy to Brandi's life and background, there is of course much I can offer to her wiki. I am just uncertain in terms of how to cite or prove information that I know to be factual about her life, background etc. Thank you again for advising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, when you refer to secondary reliable sources, please elaborate. There other other notable poker players (that are included in wikipedia as well) that know me personally and can also validate myself and information that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you commented on this AfD today and mentioned that you believed that sources outside the wrestling industry are necessary. I have added a reference from the New York Daily News that backs up the statements that had been made by wrestling writers. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at the article and comment on whether or not the article (and, in particular, the "Impact" section) now meets the general notability guideline. Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying dude many people (Including me) still believe some crop circles aren't hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrator ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for helping out--are you sure you want to get involved in this? The poster was put back again--note the editor's other edits. You're dealing with a newbie carrying a grudge, I believe. Oh, the image you removed, it came to be misnamed by an even more hapless and grudge-carrying editor, here. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So, by how many personalities are you split??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone should stop it's you guys... trying to alter the past and present???? Hablador ( talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI , Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Thanks.-- CutOffTies ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. ![]()
![]() So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can
sign up now.
We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators – S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), The Utahraptor Talk to me, and Tea with toast ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
for this. -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The tagger isn't a member of the project it seems. Dougweller ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What's your preferred venue for reporting - 3RR (for edit warring), AIV (for vandalizing user pages and unwillingness to discuss substantive edits), or ANI (for above behavior and personal attacks)? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
...for removing the tag from The Stanley Clarke Band, didn't want to do it myself. I'm actually going to nominate it as a good article. J04n( talk page) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your point on an SPA occasionally editing the Trinity Christian Academy article: I dropped a note about the RfC on the talk page of the user who most recently removed the material. It got added to my watchlist because I created the page. This morning I noticed that there's also an entry on my watchlist "Tca admin (talk | contribs) created new account User:Jstewart2011". Tca admin edited the article (and nothing else) yesterday but was indeffed for having a bad username. Is there anything we need to do about this? Brammers ( talk/ c) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I am trying to add the whole issue on 'twat' in the Maher article and you have reverted it twice. I am just referring to the source and you seem to disagree with the edit. Rather than keep going on this in the article itself, would you mind helping me address the issue? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperliner ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pushed back the non lead hope is agreeable. Hope to have your assistance with major edits attempting to made without any reasoning at all. Theres been major discussion on this page previously and this seperate from the fact that there sources arent valid. Emetemet13 ( talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible to rewrite when users like Ravpappa do it without anyone saying it is correct i did put it in the discussion Please be balanced
Abigail7 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abigail7 (
talk •
contribs)
16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You deleted my entry without any discussion, based on your personal opinion of triviality. How about discussing it on the topics talk page before you do so. Embram ( talk) 09:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for watching vandals on the article Bonita Vista High School. Your efforts assist locals, like me, by assisting efforts by those who wish to reduce the quality of articles in Chula Vista.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No talking until you guys stop removing valid content! Please give me specifics and we'll see what needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwwinter ( talk • contribs)
Hi Dayewalker, I want to add this part back in to Michael Frost Beckner. I checked all of the references and as far as I know, they are all legitimate. I've checked other screenwriter pages on Wikipedia and am trying to figure out why there has been so much dispute about Beckner's page... Here's what I want to add, but before I do, I don't want people to delete it so I thought I'd check with you first. Tell me what to fix and I will!
Michael Frost Beckner is an American screenwriter, novelist and creator of popular film and television works. His filmic themes, at their core, explore the dramatic conflicts in the allegorical father and son relationship ( Spy Game, Sniper). He is a "mixed- genre" storyteller whose works update classical genres with modern sensibilities. Beckner is widely recognized in the sub-genre of espionage storytelling [1], which has led to various high-profile television writing and executive producing assignments ( The Agency and CSI). A number of his real-world story lines have eerily predicted actual future events. [2] This has led to speculation about the true depth of his relationship to the international intelligence community. [3]
From late 1989 to mid 1991, Hollywood was setting records for the price paid by production companies for film scripts written on "
spec" (not commissioned by a studio).
[4] Still in his mid-twenties, Beckner, with his producing partner Jim Gorman, held two of the top ten spots for the highest prices ever paid for spec scripts up until that time.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
At the time, Beckner said, "I don't enjoy the spec ride. I'd rather be writing than waiting for the phone to ring. We were flattered we got as much as we did." [5] Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 ( talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the reference in the Lowell Bennion book stating that he started the "Utah Boys Ranch" not the "Teton Boys Ranch." If it's not too much trouble, can you tell me what page number you found your reference on? Thanks! -- EarlySquid ( talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an exact quote of the Wikipedia article, which used the other source (Bennion's biography) as a reference. As I stated on the talk page, Bennion's biography does not say that he started the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy and actually puts him in Idaho from 1962 until the 1980s. -- EarlySquid ( talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked him, had not noticed his attempts at engaging in discussion. Thank you for the heads up. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did you show up to defend the vandalism of Weazie? It doesn't make any sense to allow people to take things out of context as an excuse to delete sources, no matter what they post on a discussion. Simply posting something within the discussion should not be a pass to do what you want! I don't understand why you would defend such a thing unless you have some sort of ulterior motive behind it. Sempi ( talk) 08:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Beckner is married to former vice president of film aquisitions at Walt Disney Studios, Anne Sterling. [6] Beckner has five children: daughter Ally, son, Andrew, daughter, Daisy, and twin sons, Benjamin and Theodore.
Thanks! If I need to fix anything, please let me know! I'm still getting the hang of this! Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)purpleambrosia23 Purpleambrosia23 ( talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dayewalker! Check out the new user box available at User:Adwiii/UBX/Golem1. Thanks for helping with the reverts. I have blocked the health club for a month. Regards, -- Diannaa ( Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a Request for Comment concerning Sempi ( talk · contribs). You can find it here. I'm notifying you personally because you are mentioned in the RFC/U as someone who tried in vain to get Sempi to improve his conduct vis-à-vis the Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution article. Since you were a user who tried and failed to resolve this dispute, you might wish to consider adding your name to the list of users "certifying" the RFC/U; at least two formal certifiers are required in order for an RFC/U to proceed. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you readded to the Carl Levin bio's lead, info about how long he had served in the Senate (which is already included in the boxes under his photo), and when he became senior senator. I wonder if you think this is important for Carl Levin, would you consider it important for the other senior senators too, and wonder if you would consider taking the time to include the comment in for other senior senators also. That way there is a just a little bit more consistency, and not an attempt to promote. Thank for your partnership in making Wikepedia a great resource. Rodchen ( talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're looking for someone to take SuperMarioMan out and shoot him, probably not; made me smile :) -- Errant ( chat!) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Try it!
I've responded to your Slap Bet foolishness on my talk page (and will delete the thread within the week) but have now accommodated all of your criticisms so that there are no further grounds on which you can "Rvt." the Slap Bet page! Thanks for playing! --- Tjprochazka ( talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, I was moved to share this with you after reading your recent concerns on the notice board about the fellow who had taken to using his talk page as a grudge list in which yourself was featured. First off, thank you for all the work that you do for wiki on such a regular basis. With that said, I have taken the time to review several screens worth of your contributions and I would like to offer this impression of what someone uninvolved gets from the sidelines. Honestly, your RVTS and edit comments can come across a bit harsh or patronizing, also a review of your contribs can skew more towards the critical as opposed to the contributive. As I said, thanks for all your work, so I hope you dont take this personally, I am offering it as a fellow editor, perhaps if you could submit more material and orig research and bring the proportions of your critical entries and content entries a bit closer. Now this is offered as a observation, not a warning of any kind at this time. All the best! BespokeFM ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah Big Country..... and yes you are correct, only 3 MSEs since april. You see after 15 years of marriage I went through a split this past year, and while I did get the dogs, I did not get any, and I mean any, of the online accounts. I ended up Kissing goodbye to a decade's worth of involvement on numerous sites including Wiki. On the bright side, at least I no longer get taken to task for things a much younger me did and said at the turn of the century. Now just to be safe, please do not give Demiurge1000 directions to my talk page as I have grown quite fond of the recent lack oversight or accountability much less splatter! Thank you for taking the time out to consider my thoughts, all the best, and get back to work! BespokeFM ( talk) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
To prevent your blockage, I highly suggest not practicing hubris when reverting or editing articles edited by other users, and to find out exactly what "Original Research" encompasses. Please take a moment to review WP:NOR policies. Edit-wars are pointless and collaboration is highly expected of all Wikipedia users. A fact is a fact, and your perceptions of what "POV" and "Original Research" are, as valued as opinions go, moot to the facts therein. Thank you very much, and if you can find a way to collaboratively resolve this issue, that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my comments. Rather than edit warring your changes in, why don't you discuss the matter on the article's talk page? That's the best place to get further opinions. Dayewalker ( talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing I think we can both agree on when we step out of the shells of this mortal coil and this trite debate is that life is absolutely amazing.
Even you've got to admit that from an unbiased persepctive the analogy is pretty complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 ( talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I am glad you respect what I do for the sports area that I edit on Wikipedia. I was making the 2011 MLB Draft page complete since there was 50 rounds not just 1. If you have any advise or if you could help by voting to *keep* the work that I was doing on that page. Thanks again. Carthage44 ( talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The proper procedure to follow is outlined in WP:DRNC Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". thank you. BE TA 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
why did you remove my wiki edit? i will keep posting it untill one of us gibes. the info i added was important to the topic. only allowing one sided views for people to read without reasoning as to why the original article is not well rounded is called what? being a nazi of course, which is what the article is about. please do not remove the edit, it is important info. mike godwin doesn't even deserve a page for godwins law. there's no reasoning behind the behaviour of his law. all he did was notice what people do and stated it as fact. let's ask the entire line of questioning.. who, what, when, where, how, and why. he only stated one of those, not all. if you are intent on edeting out my info, then please tell me how i can make a counter page to that very narrow idea and link it to the idea itself.. let's not all live in a nazi world man
Kakeroo (
talk)
18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
So many editors, including yourself, are patiently reverting the sockpuppeters vandalism on the Clan of Xymox page. This has been going on since April already, when the page was first re-unprotected after the multiple-sock puppetry attacks of knowitallfortoday. Isn't it time to re-protect the page instead of having to revert the same vandalism every few days while the (very mobile/ traveling) puppeter keeps at the same old thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.58.157 ( talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! It seems you've made a neutral !vote at this RfA. However, it may be mistake, as it doesn't seem to talk about Qwyrxian. Was it a mistake, or should it be there? Hey Mid ( contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, as well as your help dealing with the excessive drama brought on by the canvassing. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. -- BE TA 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
My edits are factual. Please stop erasing them. Thank you. The Uber Mensch ( talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not really helping because you disrespect me like Edward by placing the comments under photographes area after I posted instruction to tell users to place comments in Comments area so I guess you are not doing a very job because you made me more anger. Encyclopedia supposed to be reading, not being playing. I am not appericating that you disrespect me like him. I am not liking any Wikipedians who have no common senses and intelligence. Culby ( talk) 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your comment here. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been closed at this point and a not left on InExcelsisDeo's talk page.
- J Greb ( talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you should look up the rules again. There was a flag on the article stating it was one sided. 2. I stated it was something I saw as an eyewitness which is allowed. Same thing as you need to take the picture your self, not someone elses. If you revert again, I will assume you just don't believe and are interfering with a balance view on the article. Please don't do do thing unless you quote a specific rule back to me and show me a reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 ( talk • contribs)
I need to ask out of my own curiosity. Do you have something personal against this man. It looks like you spend a lot of time editing his article. I would just like to know what is up with the amount of time you seem to take supervising this specific article. If you don't mind me asking. I want to believe you do not have something personal against this person but I need to ask because I see the time you spend on it.
As for me, I just went to a service and saw a miracle and wanted to talk about it. My motivation is simple, I love to talk about the things God does.
akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank You. I was not aware there was a problem. I totally agree with you actually that your beliefs as well as my own should not play a role but I felt I had to ask and I appreciate the response.
So if we hold to wiki's rule that you quote, (just for my future reference, not that I want to labor this issue any longer) If I saw person x healed of something, would doctor's records of before and after suffice? What I saw, was amazing, a burn victim whose flesh was damaged on her legs to the point that the muscles and flesh were basically missing, restored. I was about two feet away, when he began to pray, I bent over and stared at her legs and I saw her legs reform flesh. I also saw a women with tumors all over her stomach disappear. It would be impossible for it to be deception, I was too close, I was just about as close as he was when he prayed for these people. I never saw anything like it, I was amazed. I saw lots of things in my 52 years that could have been faked but this would be impossible. I know, not being there, you will think I was crazy or it was a trick or something, but I am 100 percent sure there is no way it could have been "fixed". It was truly the power of Jesus, there is no other explanation and because I was so awestruck, I wanted to include it. That's all.
It was something to see. I have no idea what this guy WV Grant did in the past, I just know what I saw.
Thanks and take care...
akc9000 ( talk • contribs • count) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Those changes that were added to the Kansas State University page were approved by members of the K-State athletic department. The University President wanted changes to be made to that page specifically and not to the Kansas State Wildcats page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcruz15 ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Per User talk:71.125.131.122, I already did bring it up on the talk page. There was no response, so I assumed the community agreed with me per WP:SILENCE, despite the recent changes patrols who tend to revert every anon edit. 71.125.131.122 ( talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Made me smile, and I don't get much smiling from WP. Perhaps I can find a Barnstar for that. Regards, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy!
If these 'koekjes' were in the BB house, I'm sure Rachel would eat them all!...B7.. Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concern — about my being a blocked editor. Feel free to have an administrator block my IP immediately. It's no big deal. 108.52.30.154 ( talk) 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I put my reasons for removing Peck entry in Discussion section. You didn't see it? Zakor55 ( talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Wiki editor Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?
Briefly:
Article currently states:
"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"
This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiography, Monsieur Le Ministre.
Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.
Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?
Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver ( talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If you check "The Finale (Seinfeld episode)" discussion page, he's really taking it personally. He's fighting to have the dialogue "Jerry, I've always" included, I'm trying to say "let's right it another way without using the line". I can't seem to break the deadlocked. Well, after learning what's consensus and critera from Seinfeld discussion page, I'm worried he might go over the line. Basically he's just saying "readers need to know as the plane went down, Elaine is meant to say "Jerry, I've always loved you" then near the end of the verdict, it's "Jerry, I've always loved United Airlines" as a joke. As a last resort, I'll ask you to get the dispute resolution going if he continues to press on like it's so important as there is a downside to this.
Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Daye, several days ago I attempted to engage with you concerning the aformentioned article, even providing you with a timeframe and inviting you to contact. You choose not to respond, but instead removed my message from this page with no comment, or imput on the article or more solid reasons for your edit. I took this as a clear sign that you did not wish to discuss the issue, and had moved on.
Instead you blindly revedited my forewarned action in a unilateral, and subjective fashion after failing to take advantage the opportunity to discuss and reach a consensus together within a generous timeframe.
As I told you I would, after time expired I replaced the review. Then you revedited it with no contact to me, attaching a sarcastic and personal view origined comment/argument that had no place on the history page. If that was your argument, it should have been made on your talk page, or my talk page or the article discussion. If you remove again it without a attempt to reach consensus and engage in discussion, you will run the risk of being reported for edit-warring and possilbly getting a temporary block. I know I dont have to tell you the rules.
Please understand, I have a tremendous respect for the amount of work you do for wiki, but that work does not provide you with free license to ignore the guidelines of good faith editing, consensus, and discussion. Not to mention civil behavior. Please take this as a opportunity lift your game to a even higher level. If this type of Arbitrary behavior was not out of character for you I would not have reached out in the first place.
If you cannot see this in the constructive light that it is offered, perhaps we might need to engage other editors or senior editors to maintain a civil and positive discourse.
Hope we can clear this up, and look forward to hearing from you. BespokeFM ( talk) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is a invitation visit my talk page. I think that there is a lot that we could discuss concerning edits, content and philosphy.
As my page has much, much, much smaller traffic then yours, I think that might allow each of us the chance to speak frankly on these subjects without making a more public spectacle.
I hope you will accept, all the best! BespokeFM ( talk) 06:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please revert your undo, and discuss this issue on OhNoitsJamie's Talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhproofer ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Kumkwat. I think that about sums it up. :) Srobak ( talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
It is obvious by the lack of information avaliable about religious persecution and the fact that it dosn't have its own article as opposed to be a part of a larger article that it is not notable. This does not mean that discrimination and/or persecution againist african traditional religions dosn't exist but in the same way I don't see other native tribes on their ex. persecution of native american or aboriginal faiths. I do however welcome you to expand it. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am going to assume good faith and come to the conclusion that you havn't looked at much of the history for the page of "Romance film". I have tried to add it into its own subsection but it has been taken down over and over again. I added it in the lead section because of the fact the other person said it didn't fit as a subgenre. There are several really great LGBT romance films. http://reviewfix.com/2011/01/our-ten-best-gay-romance-films/ http://www.amazon.com/2011-Best-Gay-Romance-Movie/lm/R2K5Y7YLZCYR1L http://listverse.com/2008/07/22/top-11-great-gay-interest-movies/ http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/collections/gayAndLesbian/gLRomance Do I need any more lists? Most (of course not all) LGBT films involve some form of romance between the characters. Now if you want me to rephrase it then fine but my point is that not all romance is between heterosexual or cisgender people. - Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I read
WP:OVERLINKING. I dont feel
Leah Remini is overlinked. The words that are linked are relevant as they are her most famouse roles and characters. The linked terms do not make the article hard to read. The linked words are apart from one another, some are in the intro, early section, career sectin.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that
Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.
I think once mention per section is fair, how about you?
Also, why is
Monica Gellar linked when this is the wiki article about Leah Remini? Those links should be delinked.
173.79.59.83 (
talk)
19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - please do not revert my closures on my talkpage , thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - pl;ease don't misrepresent me - "- When the admin understandably took offense Rob became upset " - this is false and please do not replace it -
Change your own comments if you object but please do not falsely portray my position -
Off2riorob ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Going through an RfA can be stressful, especially when people start asking loads of questions. So I want to apologise for adding to your burden by asking question number 15! I have no doubt that you are a well meaning Wikpedian who is doing good work. My concern is your lack of clarity regarding the content adding issue. I suspect this is due to the stress of the situation, and that you are being pushed on the question, so are struggling to make your views known.
Over the years quality content creation has become an important element of consideration in an RfA. However, people who have added little or no content have still gone on to become admins. People look at the strengths of a candidate. You highlight your strengths for people, and are honest about your weaknesses. A fully rounded candidate is rare, and they tend to become admins with no opposes. Almost everyone else gets opposes for some weakness or other. If the weakness are many, or are serious, then the opposes will outweigh the supports. But if the weaknesses are few, not serious, or the candidate can show awareness of their weakness and give a strategy for how to deal with it, then the supports tend to carry the day.
Content addition is not your strength. I think you need to be honest and open about that, and either say that you have no interest in content addition because your skill set is in vandal fighting, or that you are aware that content addition is not your strength, but you plan to do something about it, such as creating a new article and getting a WP:DYK, or working on an article to get it listed as a Good Article.
As you have an interest in Boston Celtics, take a look at Boston Celtics all-time roster. There are some red links there. You could start articles on one or more of those players. Such as Don Eliason. Use info from here, here, here, and the books here. If you need any help, please let me know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, you're a well-meaning, hard-working editor, and I really want to support your RfA, but your answers to the optional questions are frustrating me greatly. You keep either hinting or outright stating that you have some content creation experience (e.g. "I can add content, and have done so in the past on occasion" in your answer to question 15) but you won't tell us what it is! You've gotten at least three questions asking you this directly (not counting question 2) and you still won't tell us! SilkTork above even suggested the exact words you could use: "I have added (fill in the blank)" and still, you say you've added content, but you won't fill in that blank. I apologize for intruding on your talk page like this, but as I say, I speak from the perspective of an editor who wants to support you, but is currently not being given enough information to do so. 28bytes ( talk) 05:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
( ←) Hi, Dayewalker. I've been watching the opposes pile up with sadness. There's 4 days left and it's probably still too early to tell, but if the negative trend continues, you may want to start to consider withdrawing. I think you're prime adminship material, but the RfA community has a knack for latching onto certain issues, as you can see. If your RfA isn't successful, don't take it personally. Many of our best admins failed their first RfA. Just take the opposers seriously. Cut back on your involvement on the "dramaboards". It's ironic, but ANI involvement is typically a bane to RfA candidates. Get some content experience under your belt— get involved with GA or FA or heck, just create some decent articles. I just went through an RfA and I'd only created a single start-class article. Not a single oppose. Lastly, anticipate potential questions, and take as long as you need to think about them so you can give the best possible answer. There were quite a few in my RfA where I read the question, and slept on it, or thought it through for a day before answering it. Do this, and I think you'll easily pass an RfA in six months or so. I'll even co-nom. :) Sorry if this is something of a defeatist comment— this advice is certainly better suited for someone whose RfA has already been closed, but this was on my mind now and I didn't want to forget. Best regards, Swarm X11|11|11 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Your RfA "essay", heh, was freakin' awesome. Best wishes to you. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 04:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
A few random, garbled thoughts from me:
That's all for now. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some good to come out of this. I'm going to have a think and might post a new section at WP:BN. But please don't be dismayed by the RfA. I've seen plenty of ultimately great admins fail first time, often because of the way they presented themselves at the RfA, rather than real concerns about their contributions to the project. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Dayewalker, if Swarm wants to co-nom, I'll nominate - in six months time when you have written six lousy stubs that are little more than an infobox about an unknown reserve kicker in Goalpostistan. You've got mail.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This kind of retrospective analysis is another reason why I stand by my comment on your RfA that you'd be "huge net positive for Wikipedia" as an administrator. If you ever decide to run again, I'll be sure to support you. Good luck for now. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report
![]() We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
You almost won. Wrightwood906 ( talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
Invitation from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
![]() Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{ GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna ( Talk), Stfg ( Talk), and Dank ( talk)To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dayewalker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Invitation from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there. I see you've left a note on User:Carthage44's talk page for things in the past. The Adam Dunn article has edit reverts accredited to said user. The user does not seem to discuss much or look to build consensus. A few of us were wondering if you might have any advice. We'd like to avoid blocking any one particular user but at the same time avoid what seems like ownership of a particular article by one contributor. There is vested interest in contributing to the article but I'm afraid some of the contributors may start to lose interest if all they encounter are edit wars. Any info. you could share or advice would be much appreciated. I'll check this page for updates. Zepppep ( talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
Dear fellow wikipedia editor or administrator,
Greeting to you my fellow contributors and friends. I trust that you are all well and in good health and spirits.
I am a continued and consistent user of our open contributor forum. I have edited several articles and have worked with each of you in at least one or two instances. My most contentious edits and requests have been Jose Baez's birthplace and The Capeman BLP.
As you can see, I have continued to use my anonymous IP address in place of a regular user id or moniker. This is a personal choice and one that I most likely will continue.
My reason for contacting you is I request your assistance and input in relation to a BLP that I believe has the potential to continue to draw a very large number of readers and potential editors and others. The article in question is Adele, the singer. The article has many inconsistencies and errors contained within it. The article has been locked down and several edits reverted that have 1) validicity and potentially correct/new iinformation 2) Absolutely no talk page entries or discussion taking place whatsoever and when someone does use the talk page it is ignored or easily dismissed without a single opinion or answer to the person proposing the discussion.
I must state that I have personally not made one change to this article at all! I feel it is important to state I have no knowledge of this BLP subject whatsoever. In fact, I know nothing about her other than what is contained in the article itself. and the cited references contained within. My only contributions to anything regarding the subject is to the talk page for the article and a registered editor's user talk page.
My first entry was dated May 11, 2012 when I contributed to the talk page detailing specifically the inconsistencies within it and at the least opening a discussion and at the most requesting article editing. I also included one or two small constructive suggestions to hopefully clear some confusion I experienced in the article. No additional discussion by anyone was offered at all. (It was like I was the only one who knew that a talk page even existed). My next entries were 7 days later. and true to my mo, I become contentious and somewhat aggressive in an attempt to provoke any response whatsoever.
I am a constructive user and sometimes editor in subjects that I know are correct and I possess the knowledge and information to challenge constructively. I must apologize for my contentious tendencies and state once again I am nearly always a reasonable and fair person.
My problems with this article is outlined in the talk pages. The claim that the vandalism is persistent, I must question this as I see no persistance, nor a reason for an editor to assign a 4 month lockdown. Also, currently the last edit has reverted causing the removal of an inclusion that this artist is a pop artist when the article itself states this fact in a number of paragraphs and references within it.
I only request that you please offer a little time and review the article, talk page and recent edits and reverts. I would not ask this of you, if I did not know that this article was in need of such drastic assistance. In addition, due to the huge fame of this artist, I believe this article should really be helped by those I know are fair, just, caring and competent to the wiki community.
I have also requested the assistance in the wiki chat portal this morning outlining my concerns there as well. Unfortunately, I have much less confidence in that forum than I can say I do have in you all. The only response that I really received was nearly a dozen users immediately exited and left after stating the facts as I have here.
Any and all assistance and aid you may render, I am sure the wiki community will be the better for.
Best regards always.
Mark R (anonymous ip) 65.8.151.206 ( talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please advise me of how exactly any of this article can be sourced.... I have attempted to put in links but they all go thru Facebook.... which if you don't use it, you can't verify it.
I took out a lot of the needless "naming" of the families and just presented facts. I would imagine you are a player? If so, you already know all of this. Wjmummert ( KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)