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. |
Hey there Robert, how have you been? Awhile back I gave you a huge list of Sprigfield sites that I said I needed photos of. I am not particularly concerned about most of those requests, you can feel free to disregard them, in fact I would quite enjoy being able to do them myself, of course don't let that stop you. : ) I was, however, wondering if it might be possible for you to obtain photos of the Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop in Springfield, if you happen to be around there anytime. I would very much like to expand the article but don't really want to unless I can illustrate it. Basically some good exterior shots, the whole of the building and, importantly, anything associated with the drive thru window system, and what would be really great is some shots of the interior, a great bonus for any article and sometimes hard to obtain. Anyway, if you cannot do it I will understand but if you could let me know either way that would be great. Thanks and take care. IvoShandor 11:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You aren't an owner of wikipedia are you cowboy? -- Elred 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
... for holding the fort over on my talk page while I was away! I really appreciate it! - Alison ☺ 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. The picture you took of the Dairy Barn represents what's there, of course. I was just hoping that there might be a way to take it from a more flattering angle. Does that make sense? I guess it's the difference between George W. Bush's official presidential photo and the shot of him falling off of a Segway PT. They both reprsent him, but the first shows him in a better light (the second one is pretty funny though). At least Tech saved the barn — for which I am grateful — but until they show more interest in it, is there a way of getting a picture that makes it look less ugly-ish, aside from dressing it up in a skirt or putting cheerleaders in front of it. I added it to the Texas Tech template so hopefully more traffic will be headed to the article. Let me know what you think. → Wordbuilder 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have discovered an apparent sockpuppet, however he is not conducting mutiple edits, so I'm not sure if I can use WP:SOCK. However, I noticed that User talk:BS 0013 redirects to User talk:BS 13. Are they the same? And should something be done? Thanks Tiggerjay 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, i just found it, should i continue to watch the page for any more developments? Chaza 93 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I considered posting that link was because all of the statistics in that section of the messageboard are from credible sources in the science community and from the government. That website acts as a repository where you can find numerous childhood obesity studies from various reliable sources, all in one location. Generally I agree that I wouldn't take random statistics off a messageboard, but they really do have a credible childhood obesity "database" like setup.
... for that. I so don't need this today. Thanks for keeping watch - Alison ☺ 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct, trivia sections should not be removed. If there's important information, it should be merged with the main article. But anything unimportant should be deleted. A mention on Robot Chicken is hardly important information. 17Drew 04:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Robert. I noticed you've been reverting external link additions by User:Earpearcing and User:Cybergirl215. These appear to be sockpuppets of Belginusanl, so feel free to list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when edits like those crop up again. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers - Gobeirne 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
First I'd like to provide some background information. You are no doubt aware of the events leading up to Jagzthebest's initial indefinite block. A bit more than a week ago I found that Jagzthebest was using an alternate account, MasterJag ( talk · contribs), to circumvent his block. MasterJag's edit history consisted of minor corrections to Tekken-related articles and a nasty snipe at you on Jagzthebest's talk page [1]. Less then a day after I blocked the account, I received a conciliatory e-mail from Jagzthebest offering the suggested image and rationale example I had requested almost two months prior. Although the image and rationale were still not in line with Wikipedia policy, I assumed good faith of the effort and unblocked Jagzthebest's account. I warned him that uploading images in contravention of policy, insulting any editor, and other unbecoming behavior would result in an indefinite block.
Jagzthebest used this opportunity wisely, and after a few initial questions, he was back to constructive editing and I had no reason to monitor his contributions. Then, yesterday, I received a frankly distressing and unsightly message from Jagzthebst [2]. What was odd about this is that he had chosen to reproduce the profane vandalism as the message header, followed by "see that above? some guy wrote it under your comment on my page. now why was that?". Aside from the dubious reasoning behind even framing the message in such a manner, I was concerned about why some IP I had never interacted with would place a personal attack beneath my comment on someone's talk page. That is, until I looked at user:71.125.83.31's other contributions. Among these were edits to several Tekken character articles, articles never before edited by Jagzthebest, and changing another user's external link to point to [3]. Since the IP's contributions indicated someone from the United Kingdom who was interested in Tekken and went out of his way to identify and attack a comment on the talkpage of Jagzthebest, it was rather obvious that this was a sockpuppet. Since I did not closely monitor Jagzthebest's contributions or talk page, I did not notice the addition of the profane jab, which was for some reason reproduced in full on my talkpage a day later. It is my conclusion that, due to the previously documented immaturity and tendency to personally attack users, this IP was Jagzthebest attempting to slide in, for some weird reason, an insult against a user who had previously blocked him. After warning him of an indefinite block for any unbecoming behavior, I felt it necessary to follow through.
I would like to apologize for not leaving a reason in the block log, it seems I was to eager to skip to the "block this user" button. This has no doubt caused some problems with Jagzthebest's unblock request and I did not mean to inconvenience the review by other admins. Now that you are aware of the reasons and story behind this block, I would appreciate your review. If you think that my actions were too harsh or unfounded, feel free to unblock Jagzthebest's account. After many e-mails, blocking, tagging, and unblocking sockpuppets/alternate accounts, bizarre questions and personal attacks, I no longer wish to have anything to do with this user or monitoring his actions. I do not think that he has the requisite maturity or judgment to become a responsible contributor and I do not wish to babysit him. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It appears that after all the e-mail counseling, Jagzthebest still does not understand Wikipedia image use policy [4]. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have appreciated a discussion, but the Lincoln Flag section is not a copyright violation. I am the author of the section on Wikipedia and on the original source, http://www.united-states-flag.com/lincoln-flag.html. I have placed a blatant GNU Free Documentation License on the bottom of the original article. Writers would probably appreciate a warning before you go and delete their writing while they are in the process of editing it. ( MandyBarberio 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
I cannot find any restrictions of that nature in the About Wikipedia content sections. I am a copywriter for several websites, but I am not the owner of the websites, so I'm not necessarily "self-published." Could you please show me any useful information on this topic, since I can find none? ( MandyBarberio 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)). (RfC)
Also, I am not sure how describing how an artifact involved in the assasination of Abraham Lincoln is in any way self-promotional. I appreciate that you changed your reason for deleting the article, but your reason is only your opinion of it. Other people might find that information useful. ( MandyBarberio 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).
The link used is original content, and the relevant sources are listed along with the original article. The article is purely informational. If the section should be an independent article, that is fine, but I don't want to create an article if you are going to delete it again. ( MandyBarberio 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) (RfC)
Well obviously that is your opinion on the subject. So, you are telling me that if I provide a link to the original article, you will nominate it for deletion again, regardless of the copyright notices and everything else? It seems that every editor has different "rules" and uses references to try to prove them. I wish to have another editor review this whole situation because I feel that the deletion was unfair with reasoning opinionated and unproven. How can I have another editor review the situation now instead of wasting more of my time rewriting the article to have it nominated for deletion? ( MandyBarberio 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
And that would be a copyright infringement, so the article would undoubtedly be deleted for that reason. Is there another category I could create, and list the original article under that? ( MandyBarberio 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Yes, I had initially included the two sources I used: http://www.pikehistory.org/lincoln.htm & http://www.nps.gov/archive/foth/index2.htm, along with the link to the original article. So basically the only problem with the content I posted was its location in the Lincoln Assasination article? Everything else was just a misunderstanding? ( MandyBarberio 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Will do. Thanks. ( MandyBarberio 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
It's alright. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm just figuring things out. ( MandyBarberio 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
FYI, posted to MandyBarberio's talk page: I respectfully disagree with Rklawton's good faith opinion that the Lincoln flag info should go in a separate article. My personal opinion is that it is appropriate for the Lincoln assassination article, and that there may not be enough information to merit a separate article. Perhaps a redirect of "Lincoln Flag" to the assassination article would be OK. But I think all of this is a matter of opinion. As long as the information is properly sourced I'm agreeable with either location. And I think if the only legitimate sources have advertisements, it's OK to cite those. Ward3001 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Posted on my talk page: "Spam (but we're stuck with it because of the GDFL license unless we want to rewrite the section). Status: resolved."
I can remove the GDFL license from the original article, but then I'm sure I'd be tagged for a copyright violation. That is why I posted it there in the first place. ( MandyBarberio 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Will you come to my aid if I do that, and someone still posts a copyright violation? ( MandyBarberio 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Okay, I have redone the Lincoln Flag article, expanding it to include the 3 Lincoln Assassination flags that are accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Assassination_Flags. To try to solve the copyright problems, I only cited my original aritlce in the "Other Resources" section, and I will remove the free copyright notice from the original article, so others know it is a realiable source. ( MandyBarberio 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
im asking you to please unblock ibm44, it has been over a month now - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intel44 ( talk • contribs)
My understanding of the word "writer" is someone that has written a book. Dr. Gomez has written a book and is writing his second book. Besides that in Cuba he would also write various articles in legal journals. What is your definition of a writer? And what is Wikipedia's? Callelinea 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callelinea"
Thank you for your advice on talk pages. I will take it on board. Archifile 04:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that you are not in the habit of placing your comments on other users' talk pages smack dab in the middle of someone else's comments. I saw that I had a new message, opened my discussion page, and looked for nearly five minutes before I found your comments—located between the first and second points of another user's discussion of diacritics. I presume that this wasn't deliberate, but I can't imagine how one could have done it accidentally, either. Some people get in such a rage over things that they don't really see what they're doing; but not knowing you I cannot presume that, either. Well, if you were flying off the handle, better that your loss of control occurred on my talk page and not while driving down the street where you could have actually hurt someone.
I completely disagree with your characterization of my tag removal as disruption. I am familiar with WP: POINT, and I sincerely believe that it does not apply here. Why? There is no defined period under which the RDT is supposed to remain. Most of the ones that I have removed have been over a month old, some over three months old. Is that disruption? If not, what is? Where is the line drawn? Clearly, 24 hours is too soon for removal, if one subscribes to the notion that such tags serve a purpose. But is one week? I sincerely believe I do a favor if I "update" the encyclopedia where out of date information exists. Don't you do the same? But when is an RDT out of date? Where is that guideline written? It may very well exist, but I have yet to have anyone show me, and I am not familiar enough with the "backstage" of Wikipedia to find it myself.
Anyway, I provided a rationale for my actions. The courtesy of responding to my points, before threatening an editor who has a two-year history of editing without a single block or even a threat thereof, might be expected. Unschool 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome photos. Thanks a bunch, greatly appreciated. : ) IvoShandor 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi this is Jagzthebest (I'm logged out and writing from my IP address). This message is about the protection template on my page. Anither admin has replaced yours with one which is more specific. However the template you originally set was supposed to expire on August 7th 2007 (Today). The Template has not yet been removed. I think the admin who placed this template did not set it to expire. Could you please remove the template? thanks. 90.196.241.112 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (Jagzthebest)
Rklawton - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There is one on Arvand River in Khoramshahr and there is one on Karun, they look different as well. Check the talk page, and PManderson's comment. -- Mardavich 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have written to a friend who is a former resident of Mohammareh/Khorramshahr and he confirms what you have said - this is a bridge over the Karoon and the Shatt al-Arab cannot be seen. The shipwrecks are probably left over from the Iran-Iraq War as the Karoon and Mohammareh were the worst affected places in the war, so perhaps the photograph can be used on relevant articles, although I am not convinced this is the best illustration of the Arvand Zone (Arvand is the Farsi name for Shatt al-Arab). I quite like the photograph.-- ▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me; how did you find out about it? To be honest, I didn't know there was news coverage about that user. All I did was delete the user/user talk page because they'd been in CAT:TEMP for some time! I didn't expect to get slightly mentioned in a news article for the deletion of those pages. Wow... Acalamari 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you're new to editing the article, I'll assume that you're innocently seeing a very long edit conflict afresh. Basically, two editors, Getaway and Verklempt have been using the article for about two years as a means of writing a soapbox editorial about how much they dislike Churchill... and pointedly, not writing a biography that conforms with WP:BLP. Most especially, the large-scale tightenings of WP:BLP over that period (starting with its creation) mean that most of what they have added are policy violations on Wikipedia.
The form their edits have almost always taken (after I pushed back hard on completely unsubstantiated opinion-mongering) is putting in cited facts, usually quotes from various third parties who dislike Churchill; and put there in such a way as to overshadow and outweigh any factual discussion of the biography subject. The Barry quote is a good example: it doesn't add any additional information about Churchill's ethnic background, which is already perfectly well covered in the section, it just provides and ad hoc opportunity to insert a quote from someone criticizing Churchill. I see you are an experienced editor, so you know that mere verifiability is not enough, you also need balance, and avoiding undue weight. The Barry quote violates this aspect of WP:BLP rather grossly. LotLE× talk 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI:
Although you might look a long time for someone who genuinely denies that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, I don't see how enforcing specific government types in the infobox and having "Dictatorship" as one of them is any different policy-wise from the category or the list. Gazpacho 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the ref links on the Mashinini article. I should have done it in the first place, but for some reason find that particular task rather daunting. Now that it is done I can and will improve/expand citations for the article. -- AStanhope 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
User:AryeitskiySaldat is obviously evading the block by editing as IP Special:Contributions/68.222.34.149 at Nazi Germany. I'm not sure if I'm on solid ground reverting him under WP:3RR#Exceptions - it seems borderline to me, so I've left it. Nor could I find a page to report this kind of situation. Pls block the IP as well (or advise as to how I should proceed). Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Another user replaced a "free image" that I had on the Rick Ankiel article with this fair-use AP one Image:CGNQzHVu.jpg. I replaced this obviously "replaceable" fair use one in the article back with the free one. I had to chuckle at the irony of that but I figured you would approve. Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! BTW, Archive your talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi RK. Yes, it's a relatively obscure term all right but known in the legal profession. I'd say Frank, being a lawyer, is using it in that way. From the Latin, it literally means, "flourished", which is a nice way to refer to someone's life IMO. But given that Frank has a serious amount on his plate right now and given that it's in userspace, I'd personally just let it go. Over to you - Alison ☺ 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Replied here. → AA ( talk) — 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Revert Rule
Sorry about that - didn't check the edit history when three edit conflicts came up, which caused my breaking the rule inadvertently. Djg2006 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Could you please take a look at the long edit war on Perro de Presa Canario?
This is a breed of dog that has been responsible for two highly publicized fatal maulings in the United States over the past 6 years. I have dispassionately included summaries and citations for both of these events in the article and a small cabal of breeders/owners/sellers insists on removing all references to the killings citing "hysteria" on my part.
For my part, I'm not taking a POV wrt this article beyond believing that the maulings are relevant and should be included in the article. The breed-lovers who insist on removing the mauling citations are clearly taking a strong POV and exerting it upon the article.
Would you lend your eyes to the issue, svp? Thank you. -- AStanhope 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See endless back and forth on this issue including a good-faith offer directly to Astanhope to come to some sort of constructive solution - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Astanhope&diff=prev&oldid=137688886 - which, by the way, went completely ignored - perhaps he was unable to respond and the offer escaped his mind while in the midst of one of his numerous disciplinary timeouts.
I'm not a breeder, dealer, etc. (see PdPC discussion, item 1) Second, this prolific vandal, Astanhope (or one of several sock puppet identities he's been posting under - Gauche, Timeonmyside1, 75.51.66.234 - while being blocked for vandalism) has been working the article for full hysterical bedwetter impact by habitually reposting, for the past several months, the bold header "Attacks Against People," and various gratuitous representations of the gruesome details. Third, it's a well-established fact that the dogs involved in the Whipple tragedy were, in fact, mastiff mixes: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45596.asp - and you know, if it's in an actual ODT publication, it must be true - I seem to recall one of his multiple identities making this argument at some point. Frangible 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
All baseball sources say 1917 - and the Rizzuto family has confirmed the date. (including BB Biographical Committee, Retrosheet, BBRef.com, Ron Liebman, etc.) The mistake came when Rizzuto mentioned in a few interviews that he lied by a year when he played (then listed as 1918) but error was corrected decades ago (soon after his 1956 retirement as player). Administrators to Wikipedia accepted 1917. NY Post is also, at times, proven to be an unreliable source. (DDNB picked up wrong year from an old Wikipedia listing - since corrected). -- KrazyChicken 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Robert, have you considered archiving this page? It's really, really long, I had to scroll for a bit just to get past the contents. :) IvoShandor 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's funny, but I seem to have a shadow on Wikipedia called AhvaziKaka. He crops up specifically to contradict me - in fact, his account appears to be almost completely dedicated to this task: [5] [6] [7]. Having only a few edits on his account and having not contributed for over a month, this user suddenly decides to make a comment on a proposal for a Wiki project on Arabs, naturally contradicting me [8]. The purpose appears to be that he is the "true voice" of Ahwazi Arabs, and I am the "false voice". His third ever edit on Wikipedia was a welcome page to a one-purpose account [9], which was used to revert changes on articles I happened to be editing at the time. What do you make of this? I've had this kind of stalking before, but not by an account specifically set up to target me. I want to assume good faith, but perhaps I am being paranoid?-- ▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If neither of you are willing to degenerate this discussion into rudeness or other serious rule breaking, then I'll be forced to sit back and not block anyone. So please, if you are going to set the example for other Wikipedian's by calmly discussing your differences on my talk page, just let me know, and I'll paste barnstars on both your talk pages. Rklawton 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, I apoligize if I was being rude, can you please look into the issue the Hamadan page? This term "Hamadan" is most commonly used in English as an alternative spelling of Hamedan the city, not the tribe ( Hamadan tribe). You can check this by a simple search (plz see google [20] Britannica Encyclopedia [21] Columbia Encyclopedia [22]), . I am affraid someone will remove the redirect again, I appriciate it if you looked into this issue cloesly. AhvaziKaka
Obviously, u know nothing about the breeds history. Chessy999 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You know that "Aryeitskiy Saldat" guy you blocked for a month for repeated 3RR violations on all those Nazi-related articles, and for block evasion?
His name is Russian for "Aryan Soldier"; as such, his block has been extended indefinitely. DS 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That kinda takes away some of the fun, doesn't it? Rklawton 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (from Bernard Okun) I feel that I have been unfairly blocked from Wikipedia, after I made a few constructive edits to Phil Rizzuto - and removed some unconstructive stuff. There is a birth certificate available which confirms his date of birth. When I was told of the 3-revert rule, I stopped further edits. Also, I am not a sockpuppet of anyone else (See my talk page). If you can't unblock me, please inform me of the process I must go through to be unblocked. All this is a bit of a shock. (Bernard Okun, August 28, 10:53 EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.161 ( talk) 14:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my discussion about the Ortolan Bunting, but it isn't for you to remove other people's discussion comments. And, since I added a link to the actual article that did not exist, your note "see above" is not applicable. WiccaWeb 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Would "Juche Communist State" be acceptable? Speedboy Salesman 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you're an admin or not, but I see you've had prior troubles with User:Callelinea, so I thought I'd ask you for help in my current edit war with her. He/she keeps placing unsourced material in the Pedro Zamora article. If you look at the Edit Summaries in our last few edits, you'll see what it's about. I also began a discussion on that Talk Page to further elaborate my point of view, and invited Callelinea to join it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for quickly replying to my page protection request for the Steve Fossett article. Those IP edits were very quickly getting out of hand, so you've saved everyone a lot of work now. Thanks again and see you around. Answerthis 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The previous discussion on Category:Homophobia did result in a deletion. As an administrator, it was not really my decision to delete that category. Rather it was my opinion that there was consensus in the discussion for deletion. As I recall there was clear consensus for deletion. Apparently Category:Homophobes has now survived two CfDs. For many editors there is a difference between the two. Thanks for the notice, but I see no reason for me to participate in the discussion. I will add that category discussion pages probably do not get much of a following. Vegaswikian 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Norm watches too much Thomas the Tank Engine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Calton | Talk 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a template, yes. It said that if you objected to the article being deleted for any reason, to simply remove the template. Why would you threaten to block me for that? There are other templates you can use that direct people to a talk page that are not to be removed. I also note the last line of the template I removed states that if removed, that template should not be put back up.
I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just seeing that every few days, there are some articles up for deletion that deserve at least some consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 ( talk) 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't remember if I ever said so or not but you took some mighty fine photos of the Maid Rite shop in Springfield. I wonder, since you seem to be from that region, do you have anything of the Benjamin Stephenson House in Edwardsville. There isn't an article yet but the family is pretty important to northern Illinois history, at least the son, anyway. (Cough, cough-archive-cough.) IvoShandor 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you archived! Congratulations on getting the Miszabot. :-) R. Baley 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:KiddBeatz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
B1atv
21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I followed your instructions up until the edit part... I think I created a new wiki for Bigshow with corrections by mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bigshow_radio_la&action=submit this is it. I made it very encyclopediaesq. Does this meet Wikipedias guidelines? ( Hernanzepol 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi, I wanted to create a resource of PowerPoint templates, and add detailed info on how to create them, their design aesthetics, etc. So I put in a few lines to get started, and then you deleted that saying it is redundant? Can you help me with this? How can I create any content when you delete stuff that I would painstakingly put together?
Thanks -- have a great day.
Geeteshbajaj 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Somehow its just too stereotypical that this is from a municipality in Kentucky. Its almost like a bad joke.
While I'm here, I suggest considering archiving your page - it is awfully long, and actually lagged on loading for me. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the little cleanup on my talk page. :) Didn't know we're allowed to remove pointless messages such as those.
Arendedwinter
15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop undoing Archifile's edits on his talk page. It's his talk page, and short of re-wording your edits, he's free to do with it what he wants. Your history of edits on Archifile's talk page bear a strong resemblance to harassment, and I won't allow that to continue. Rklawton 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my attempted edits. I was trying to fix the clumped edit links, and something wasn't working properly -- Rpyle731 (logged out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.145.66 ( talk) 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just add a template to the top that it needs references because i can't find it and that is a lot of info that you deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpoo ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My bad then Shawnpoo 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Robert, sorry so impersonal, in a rush, got to go. :)
IvoShandor 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I thought you'd like me to notify you that you've violated WP:AGF by immediately assuming that I was out to disrupt Wikipedia (which is actually the opposite of what everyone else seems to think). That and I thought it'd be interesting to see how you like it when someone immediately tags you with some sort of "you broke the rules!" notification. Try to be a little more WP:CIVIL next time. -- Cheeser1 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've full-protected both his user and talk pages, as the racist ramblings keep being re-added. Feel free to unprotect if you think I'm being too harsh... I've deleted the offending material, but left the rest of the talk in place. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey, buzzing through, more deliveries to make, see ya around for surely. :)
The
WikiProject Illinois Newsletter (Beta) "Post Census Report" Vol. I, No. 1, Issue 1, October 2007 If you would like to delete this message, the original is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Newsletter/Post Census Report | |
On October 4, 2007 WikiProject Illinois embarked on a membership census. The census was the project's first since its establishment on September 24, 2005. Due to the nature of the wiki, and the two years that had passed, it seemed likely that many of the project's older members were no longer active. The project page had grown stagnant and the census provided an opportunity to see who was still around, slaving away in their own corner of the encylopedia, unknown to the rest of the Illinois editing world. Well, now, the tabulation is complete, and after a notice at the Community Portal, we have gained a couple new members amongst the cluster of project veterans who returned to sign up. Of the 55 members listed on the project membership list on October 4, 26 editors returned to the list to "resign up," thus, confirming their current activity within project areas. If you received this message, you were one of those editors. The List of Participants has now been updated to reflect the results of this membership survey, with members who failed to respond highlighted as "inactive." Now, as a group of editors, we have a core list of individuals, that will hopefully grow in size as the project strives to become a better organized central collaboration space for editors working on Illinois related topics.
The big question, where does the project go from here? Well there are a few proposals being floated at this project page. Little discussion has occurred thus far, and participation would be key to all of them. Some ideas include:
|
|
IvoShandor 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed content from Merck & Co. that specifically referred to Merck KGaA which is a completely different company. I made that clear in my edit summary. Why did you restore this content that doesn't belong in that article? Also, the IP that you left a conflict of interest warning message for belongs to Johnson & Johnson, which is also a different company than Merck & Co.. How can there be a conflict of interest? Please undo your incorrect revert at Merck & Co. and remove your mistaken warning message from User talk:148.177.1.211. Thank you. 148.177.1.211 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was afraid someone would get to it before me :). That's a nice image you found of him, thanks for adding that. Although it looks like the image was uploaded on top of one for a different Michael Murphy (check out the image history). jwillbur 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
ya wanna give me a reason why you reverted my comments on earring discussion? Д narchistPig 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2.i checked the user name rules thing and dont any cause for offence nor any cause for it being any of your goddamned business. Д narchistPig 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
At the discussion page of Charles Manson, I've just left a note headed "Vandalism." I'm bringing it to the attention of you and one or two other editors who have countered vandalism of the article. JohnBonaccorsi 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you take a look at my userpage for the dispute in question? It has all arisen from the pettifoggery of an unnamed user, which resulted in a pointless AnI. I believee you posted in that thread. Viridae has reverted back to changes he made to my userpage, and then protected it to keep me from putting his deletion back in. I explained my reasoning on his userpage, but then he reverted and protected regardless. K. Scott Bailey 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I read the whole ANI thread. It seems that one editor thinks bailey should be nicer to vandals, and everyone else thinks bailey is doing a fine job. I agree with everyone else. Now, without reading bailey's user page (which I haven't), I can say that a user's talk page should be left to that user. Feel free to leave messages, but don't feel free to force those messages to remain. And it isn't appropriate to protect a talk page unless the user has already been blocked from editing. It's disruptive. Rklawton 11:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we de-escalate the edit war, please. I am genuinely puzzled because I believe I have acted in good faith. From my perspective: - my text is fully supported by the references and is encylopedic - nonetheless, my version has been repeatedly deleted with unspecified reasons and with no discussion on the talk page - a much older and less complete version has been substituted - I have now been warned that I am engaged in an edit war and bad things may happen soon!
Let's leave aside recriminations and past history, and move forward from here, assuming good faith . A useful way to proceed might be: -maintaining the current text for the moment on the article page -on the discussion page, working with the current text by deleting or modifying any text that falls short of Wikipedia standards and arriving at a consensus
Thanks Qwertman 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate your thoughts on the article I just created on Tom Dula, the real man behind the popular folk song "Tom Dooley." It's not long (only a bit over 5000 characters, I think), so it shouldn't take too long. I know you're busy, so if you can't get to it, I understand. Talk to you later! K. Scott Bailey 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Croydon facelift.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Croydon facelift.JPG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Revolus 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to make my "Pages I watch" list on my userpage into a collapsible secion. Do you know how I do that? I've looked and experimented, and can not seem to figure it out. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the IPs that vandalised your page on Commons just turned up on en books ( with this) and is blocked by you here. I'm inclined to think this is not a school given this? Any thoughts & no urgency at all, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Robert, wondering, could I get a little help on the article above, User:Nyttend is up at the edge of 3RR changing units to list metric first in a U.S. article, flatly in the face of WP:UNITS. Perhaps you could help explain this to this user. IvoShandor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can an article about an album (i.e., Make me rich) be tagged db-band? It does not quite seem to fit, but it's the closest I can find. This article is rubbish. Thanks for your time. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You caught it a little before me--I've commented at AN/I and am speaking to the appropriate PR people there tomorrrow--I've done this before, with advice and instruction from Durova, using her WP:BFAQ. DGG ( talk) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A brief summary:
This user came to my attention when I was doing some RfA reviews and votes. He was blanketing every RfA with an oppose vote and some version of a "we don't need a professional police force" commentary. At first, this simply struck me as misguided, and a bit disrespectful (per WP:AGF), especially coming from an administrator. Upon reviewing his contribs further, I realized that this was a more blatant violation of both WP:AGF and WP:POINT, as he was simply taking out his frustrations about a 48hr block he received from another admin for edit warring on the RfA candidates up for consideration. I approached this editor, both in the main RfA space, as well as on his talk page. Several other editors did so as well. He has continued his policy violations by WP:NPA|attacking]] us as "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." He has also deleted multiple good-faith contribs from his talk page, simply because he didn't like what we had to say. While I know that at least THAT part is within his rights, I don't know if I've ever seen an admin demonstrate less good will and good faith in my previous months on the project. I have included what I feel are the most pertinent links. What I'd like to see is an "outside review" of sorts, of how this admin has conducted himself, both in the initial RfA canvassed opposes, and the subsequent discussions. Thanks in advance for any time you can put into this. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(The above are various diffs that demonstrate his extreme incivility in both posted content and edit summaries.)
[31] (This is the 48hr block that apparently started his inappropriate RfA campaign against an admin "professional police force.")
[32] (I placed a discussion he deleted from his talk page here for preservation.)
[33] (His accusations of bullying are all the way at the bottom of this page.)
Hey guy, I saw that you helped out originally with List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois. I just wanted to let you know that I have converted it into a table, and Ivo and myself are going to start working on it towards FL. So any assistance with the page or the other articles would be great. Or heck, just even morale support would be great!-- Kranar drogin 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my one place would have to be the Illinois Executive Mansion. I am going to make a quick map for you, well, trying to anyways. I saw someone do this, so give me a few here.-- Kranar drogin 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guy, did you have any luck on your adventures in Springfield?-- Kranar drogin 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI (since you're a significant contributor to the article), I've asked members of WikiProject Law to comment following [34]. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey
I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.
thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Both the talk page and the article are being monopolized by pettifoggery from User:Gwen_Gale. She is opposing uncontroversial portions of the article based on minutae, and refusing to recognize any sources provided as reliable. I've disengaged from her now. I'd appreciate another set of eyes on the article, and this potentially problematic user. (As background info, you should know that she has claimed she could reliably source that Lincoln was "genocidal", so she's got some "different" ideas on Lincoln.) K. Scott Bailey 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Need your help
If you think it's appropriate, please block
this user. Thank you.
Oda Mari (
talk)
18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if you think it might be useful to put a range block on the IPs used by the person who keeps vandalizing the Merck article. Do you think the collateral damage on blocking 201.141.128/17 would be minimal? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! It's me again. I've been sighing since then. I'm not in hurry. so I ask you the block again. To tell the truth, it's easier. I'm not sure if I could post the report appropriately. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am reposting this from the note I left at Tim Vickers talk page, as I just noticed he won't be around until Wednesday.
I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by User:Gwen_Gale. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind talking to User:Gwen_Gale about both her accusations against good faith in calling my removal of external links at Abraham Lincoln per WP:EL "edit warring", as well as her continual insistence on reinserting them after several editors have removed them based on the same reasoning. I've asked her to stop accusing me of "edit warring" in her summaries, but she refuses to do so. I will remove them one last time, but I need someone other than myself to contact her regarding both her accusations and her reinsertion of what basically amounts to a link farm. K. Scott Bailey 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So far I agree with your takes on each one you've looked at, thanks for doing this. Gwen Gale 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president; The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely, Vanais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanais ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See User:EvanS/Photos, who uploaded the image. Its caption is Birding in Indian River County. Located in the Indian River off the northwest coast of Orchid Island is the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. While access is limited, birders do watch from nearby either on the water or on Orchid Island. EvanS put the image in the Town of Orchid article and I put it in the Orchid Island article when I created. it clariosophic ( talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)corrected typo clariosophic ( talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your question on the talk page, hope it is of use to you. Mjroots ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking after my page during my absence Boatman666 ( talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would have expected more from an admin. How you could possibly call that link a personal website or a blog is beyond me. With all due respect, I think you should retract your assertion. Either way, I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Rklawton, I think you may have confused incidents when changing this sentence: "This, and other reports of members of the US military's Criminal Investigation Command working with, or posing as, members of Canadian law enforcement has raised questions about Canadian sovereignty" The reference supporting the statement [35] is not about the incident in BC, and I think it supports correctly the assertion made. Pete.Hurd 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, I appreciate you showing me the Wiki policy on external links, but wouldn't you agree that some some sites (such as gruntsmilitary.com) offer high-quality image scans of these medals which people might actually be searching for? And, if they are searching for nicer images, they honestly won't find much on Wiki's current collection. Plus, I can't exactly grab the images from gruntsmilitary.com because most aren't in the public domain (and thus we can't paste them onto their wiki pages). Don't you think that this adds content and is worthy of an external link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militarybuff ( talk • contribs)
Civility is great. I'm glad you added the war correspondent, but a month of making the request is an awful long time for something that is properly and obviously sourced. Matt Sanchez 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not giving you heat. I'm actually pointing out that it's great you were able to effectuate a change that was dragging along.
I need for people to point out what the "personal attacks" are, because there's obviously a communications' issue.
I've revised the Adult Entertainment category. How do I get editors to vote on this proposal? What is the usual process for making this change?
The revision is on the site, how do I proceed? Matt Sanchez 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we could re-write:
I got the links to the article and rewrote several parts. Much better re-write. Please comment and see if we can get editors to approve it.
In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.
During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild[24], Jawbreaker[25] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [26]
Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."
Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?
Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you sent me that message I didn't readd any corporate logo it was already there,I just moved it. Anyway its not a coporate logo its a free non-profit organization and its supposed to be an article about the square so shouldn't we have their logo on the page? Lastly other pages have logos for their organization,and or landmark why should fountain square be any different? As I said before I'm confused. Meckstroth.jm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meckstroth.jm ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we could re-write:
In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors
John Rutherford and
Kristen Bjorn and
Chi Chi Larue at the studios
Bijou,
Catalina and
Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under
Rod Majors.
During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild
[1], Jawbreaker
[2] and Idol Country co-starring
Ryan Idol and
Marco Rossi.
[3]
Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."
Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?
Do you mean the Lindley info should just be not included? I have no view, except that Lindley is certainly not notable enough for his own article independently of Lincoln, his article was all about Lincoln. But we could just make Lindley a redirect, though thhen maybe he should get a one-sentence mention in the rare event people come from there. Merkinsmum 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that you responded on Talk:Thomas T Walker about his notability as a Silver Star recipient. From time to time, there have been afd discussion on military personnel based on either rank/honors (BGen/NC). Some arguments centered on how many people there would be that would meet the criteria — I don't think numbers mean anything. At this point, I'm not inclined to support blanket notability on the basis of a Silver Star award. See Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. Checking just the "A"s — all have notability apart from the Silver Star. In the case of Bruce Godfrey Brackett, his additioanal notability comes from having a USN ship named in his honor. In the case of Thomas T Walker, there are a number of issues, in addition to notability of a Silver Star recipient — WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT. I'm interested in your further thoughts. — ERcheck ( talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit is unacceptable. I have been neither incivil nor disruptive and have not even edited the article lately. Moreover, the only reason I showed up again is that other editors had expressed, both on my talk page and on the article talk page, concerns about the lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln. Under the circumstances, if you wanted me to leave the discussion you could have sent me a polite email asking me to step back for awhile and I would have done, happily. I had already agreed on the talk page that waiting 90 days or so was a helpful notion and was only replying to straggling comments. To put it in a friendly way and very much assuming your good faith, let's pretend you handled it like you should have and I will step back. Meanwhile, since you're an admin and seem to have gotten a bit lost, I humbly suggest you take a moment to review, if you like, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NPOV and notably, WP:V. Either way, if you have any lingering concerns, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through my email link. You do have my best wishes. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Orange Mike, Lew Rockwell is not a neo-Confederate apologist (wou might want to do some reading up). Are we done now? Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
She is showing no willingness to even consider that she's been much less than helpful at Abraham Lincoln. At what point do we take the evidence up a level? Mr Which ??? 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe everyone involved has edited in good faith. Gwen Gale ( talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the article Corcoran and you said you removed unsourced material which is NOW sourced.You also stated I was an often blocked user,may I enquire as to where you got that impression?This is extremely irritating of you to suggest so as my intentions are not well meaning,how dare you.~~
Ok very well.At least you intentions on the edit were meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cú Culainn ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck ( talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
it's me again is any hope for Kremlin armours photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.131 ( talk) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see comments by Songflower in Perro de Presa Canario discussion.
Frangible ( talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
Frangible ( talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I tagged it as nonsense/hoax because I couldn't find one mention of the person on google. The article mentions their supposed fame, and backs it up with refs from journals supposedly by and about this person. I could find no mention of the ref documents either. So article about someone who I can't find any proof of, backed up by documents I can't find any existence of looked like a hoax to me. I have no *explicit* proof of hoax, just that it matched a pattern for creation of hoaxes I have seen from other editors before. Improbcat ( talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here on Wikipedia. I didn't think that could really happen. This is just a website! I thought. But no. I was wrong. I want to say thank you for your patience and counsel with me. Some folks have been a bit abrupt, and between figuring out how to make words blue, not to mention getting the reference codes right, not to mention understand what references are not considered appropriate, I've been barely able to breathe! Everybody thinks I'm a vandal, and I'm not, I'm just doing everything wrong.
Anyways, thanks for your patience and counsel regarding the journals. We found an amazing collection that belonged to my grandfather and his brother -- apparently this was their hobby. Some incredible stuff - I just can't believe it! I'm having so much fun reading them and learning so much that I guess I got overexcited. I'm reluctant to take them into a university (safety issues), but maybe that'd be best. This information is truly amazing.
So I guess I'll just give up Wikipedia and leave it to the experts. I just wanted to include some of this stuff I'm learning, but maybe this isn't the right place for it. I'd heard that Wikipedia was supposed to be the collected intelligence of everyone in the world, and I felt I had something to contribute. I guess I was wrong.
Your friend, Clay ( talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
is called "Appendix L Interim Report on WTC". Quantumentanglement ( talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Burr-Hamilton duel. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you significantly edited the article (as determined by WikiDashBoard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't deal with the guy anymore. Raul even suggests blocking him. Perhaps we could contact Raul (or some other uninvolved admin) about placing a short block on this account to prevent his disruption. Then, if he continues, the block could be extended. Your thoughts? Mr Which ??? 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your malicious edit. "The Independent" and RAI are not fringe sources - they have rather more reliability and credibility than, for example, the New York Times. - Sarah777 ( talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you have blocked this user. Rklawton, I am by no means a sympathizer with left-wing POV pushers, but this was a horrendous personal block, and you should know that. Admins don't block people they're in an edit war with. I ask you to remove this block right now, and bring it to the appropriate venue and ask another, uninvolved admin to do the block for you. Because I guarantee it will be overturned if you don't do so yourself right now. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for edit warring on list of massacres. These are the edits concerned: [37], [38], [39], [40]. The reverting only stopped here after you blocked the user you were edit warring with, which leads me to believe that there's a strong chance you would start edit warring again with anyone else who made substantially similar edits. -- bainer ( talk) 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Prior to this block
1) I had already apologized in the ANI thread above
2) another editor reverted my edits in the article in question - and I didn't revert back though I continued participating in various talk pages and the ANI thread noted above, all of which rather disproves the notion that I would have continued edit warring
3) none of the admins participating on the ANI thread recommend I be blocked from editing
4) The blocking admin took unilateral action even though several admins were involved in this matter on the ANI page - which isn't very respectful of the ANI process or the other admins involved.}}
I think you are doing a fantastic job for all of us on Wikipedia, keep up the good work. Seth J. Frantzman ( talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you played a significant role in the formation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. While I think I know why, I was wondering why you are no longer active in the project. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your opposition. I post this anonymously since I am one of several former editors who have been the victims of Gwen/Wyss' ruthless tactics when she is confronted with people she can't control, some of whom are quite knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. These tactics include such relatively innocuous, but anti-Wiki policy, behaviors like name-calling (amply documented if you take time to read Wyss' talk page or Google her), but, more insidiously, getting Editors with whom she's in conflict (which is most of the time) blocked for various reasons due to her longstanding relationships with other Administrators. While she used to complain about others "gaming the system," it was Wyss/Gwen herself who was non pareil in the gaming category. In fact there is a small coterie of "Wyss Survivors", as we term ourselves, who banded together via private email over the past 2 years or so, and you will notice that it was only in the past two weeks when two of us posted acrostics to Gwen's talk page "outing" her as Wyss that she finally admitted she was Wyss, something she had denied for close to a year. This was obviously done to circumvent any negative votes in the RfA. However, more importantly, her assertion that her only sockpuppet was "The Witch" is patently false. She has a long history of creating socks which she uses to defame other Users/Editors with whom she is having conflicts. Though it's obvious that she will be approved as an Administrator, I hope that you at least will keep an eye on her behavior. I will say that she seems to have become a bit more relaxed in her guise as Gwen than she ever was as Wyss, but her troubling behaviors do continue to this day, as you have noted. I'm curious why no one has mentioned her anti-Wikipedia screed which ran on Wyss' talk page for months after she "permanently resigned" from Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. 24.22.24.202 ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | ||
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable and very serious concerns about POV pushing, problematic edits and judgement when there is strong disagreement. I will take heed and very carefully address them. I welcome your comments anytime. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Our friend Thomas Paine 1776 is back at Henry Ford, yet again trying to whitewash For'ds aanti-semitic history. I could use your help again with this. Thanks ThuranX ( talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
RK has made no comment since 22 December. Anyone out there know if he is OK? Sarah777 ( talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am relieved too!, even though he is completely wrong about the Lincoln death photo I put in, I am glad RKlawton is okay!
High regards, ([[User talk::cathytreks|talk]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.41.9 ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
oh no, it was me mr. bot, it is eye....cathytreks.... the Lincoln death photo photo girl friend of RKlawton.
The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar | ||
For being apart of WikiProject Freemasonry! InvisibleDiplomat666 05:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello again. If you could do the honours?
Littlegirlearspierced (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log)
Cheers! -
Gobeirne (
talk)
08:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Robert, glad to see you're back and I just wanted to drop a note to tell you that. R. Baley ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a university student who had the assignment of creating and keeping up a wikipedia article this semester and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my article and give me some comments. The article is Waukee United Methodist Church
Thanks, Kbeichle ( talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
i'm sorry i didn't know Myheartinchile ( talk) 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could please help me out. I don't really have any experience with conflict resolution in Wikipedia, and don't know what steps to take. I am worried about the contributions from User:Slyder_Pilot, in particular, his repeated additions to the Saint Joseph's University, University of Minnesota Duluth, and Thumb wrestling pages, despite his changes being undone by numerous users, numerous times. I noticed in his talk page that you had previously dealt with him with the Thumb wrestling page, and so I thought maybe you could help guide me in the right direction - to determine what policies in particular he is violating, and what steps to take to encourage him to stop. Any advice you have or actions you could take would be very much appreciated - Shadowsill ( talk) 03:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Look at that!
Somebody said it's notable! --
Slyder Pilot
15:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason i came out against you i that you really should leran some manners. Being an administrator doesn't give you the right to call someones edits "crap" and calling a web site "six years old nose picking...".
If you want to continue being an administrator, you should be polite all the way, and that doesn't metter what the other user does. That's part of what being an admnistrator is.
As for the user. Did you see his contribution list? He contributes, and in a nice way. Instead of reverting him, leave the information for a certain period, lets say a week, and give him the chance to provide you links to prove this organisation is notable.
Besides, he just entered in the article that another organisation has different rules, he didnt create an article about it and it's size is a completely different discussion. Log in, log out ( talk) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Rkwalton. [45], [46]. Dont get me wrong but as far as i know the Sun is not a hoax, it's a serious. A big newspaper read all over canada, the Canadian New York Times, that seems that the hoax ocusation falls of. I dont know about the size of that federation and if it deserves a seperate article or not, but it deserves the line Slyder Pilot wanted to add in the general article about the sport. Please give arguments why a real organisation which gets a media coverege cant get a line not about it even but about the fact that there are organisations which use different phrases. I yet return it, in order to talk about it before we do something. Log in, log out ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. It seems that someone you had blocked has returned, abusive again, under a new name. The current username is Log in, log out ( talk); his recent abusive post is [47]. His blocked identity is M.V.E.i.. Look at the similarities in writing styles and biographies: [48] [49] - similar writing styles, both invovle music, both involve National Bolshevism. I'm not technologically savvy but I suspect they can be traced to the same address. Faustian ( talk) 19:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Send a request up to check-user. They may be of some help. If I did the block myself, it might appear as a conflict of interest. Rklawton ( talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've reopened the can of worms that is the 55 vs 44 gallon drum argument which you were involved in a while ago. Since you were involved before the argument fizzled out without a conclusion, I thought you might like to include your input again. Thanks, Phasmatisnox ( talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde Thanks for you attention.
Guyonthesubway ( talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This user is attacking me all over wikipedia
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guyonthesubway
Gdewilde ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I noted on the talk page for CrossFit that you were mediating editing discussions and helping to move the article into a NPOV page. I ran across the article when I saw today's MCT article on a lawsuit. I wanted to see there was a Wikipedia article and found an article that read a bit like advertising, with a criticism section thrown in.
I feel that I am a pretty neutral editor here, as I'd never heard of CrossFit and could only derive my information from available reliable sources, etc. I've done a bit of editing; but still feel that the {{ advert}} tagged section could still use a bit of work. I did strip out a number of citations to discussion boards and multiple links to the CrossFit website, as well as commercial sites.
Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. — ERcheck ( talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. In the past you had expressed concern that the Texas Tech article was not up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that it has underwent considerable changes and is one of Wikipedia's newest featured articles. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a leading editor of Ernest Hemingway, you may be interested in the individual WP:GAR discussion at Talk:Ernest Hemingway/GA1. Please consider helping to improve the article to retain its WP:GA rating.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, linking dates is now deprecated per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting. This is a recent change, and it seems to have been advertised poorly. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I read an article by a cathetricks and they said newly discovered photos and a hoop skirt found in the white house, from the 1860's, prove that Abraham Lincoln was in fact a woman! omg!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.75.181 ( talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Rmattai, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rmattai and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rmattai during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. haz ( talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) haz ( talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rklawton, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dropping by talk:Lurita Doan. We're having a pretty lively discussion at the moment and a rather large rewrite has been proposed for the "controversies" section. Thanks. Kind Regards -- Happysomeone ( talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Robert, I dug out my Ernest Hemingway books and left a post at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Restoration about some ideas for how to work on the article. You'd expressed interest at the recent Good Article Review... If you're still interested and have access to some good books, or just have some good ideas, or whatever else, please share whatever you've got! Should be fun too. Cheers, -- JayHenry ( talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a possibility that User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not may be a sockpuppet of a user you have previously had experience with. Comparing the contributions of User:M.V.E.i., User:No Free Nickname Left, and User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not, I noticed similar arguments about inclusion of ethnicity in biographical articles, particularly as they relate to Russian or related biographies, including accusations of vandalism when items were removed. I made edits to information on Igor Sikorsky which resulted in reversion and charges of vandalism which were edited to then be a discussion about my edits. Since No Free Nickname established the "sources" that I removed, it raised the question of why User:I'm... was so vehement about their inclusion. From the discussion, I observed grammar syntax similarities between the two users, which raised suspicion in my mind, especially when I saw from User:No Free Nickname Left's user page that he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Other similarities exist in my mind, but I feel someone else should take a look at it. -- Born2flie ( talk) 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Gwen Gale. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD ( talk) 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
11/28/2008
We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring it into conformance. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give is forever appreciated.
The current list of references was chosen as follows:
1) Wagner, D.R., to show the history of After Hours Poetry 2) Access San Francisco, to show that After Hours Poetry is and has been in the public arena. 3) Six Foot Swells, to show that other publishers have and continue to work in the genre of After Hours Poetry.
Yes one of our authors was used as a reference here. It needs to be noted that one of our editors mistakenly used his personal information to open an account here. The error has been corrected.
Please review recent changes in the article, as we believe we have met the spirit of Wikipedia’s needs.
We respectfully ask you to please remove this article from you delete list.
We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com .
Thank you, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow Publications Editor395 ( talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Addition Author Comment: In reference to the news article you mentioned. The article was not included as a reference to After Hours Poetry. However, it does demonstrate that the genre has been recognized in the media for a long time. Also, it should be noted that there are well over one hundred such articles posted on the internet, all in reference to After Hours Poetry and the writers who work in the genre. We have intentionally stayed away from using these article for references, as we feel they do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria. After Hours Poetry is a relatively young genre of poetry that continues grow at a rapid pace. We feel comfortable that in a short time frame others will be enhancing the article, adding additional references and strengthening its content. We trust the Wikipedia editors will allow the After Hours Poetry article to continue to be part of the Wikipedia world. Again, thank you.
We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com. 24.10.8.50 ( talk) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
From the history of said article, I see you've added some award recipients. Can you please add valid references for your edits as per WP:CITE? Thank you. (talk) raghuvansh (contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
After delving further into the complex structure of wikipedia’s objectives and guidelines, I am beginning to come to a better comprehension. As I now understand, when an article gets an AfD tag, it is subjected to discussion with the aim of either salvaging the article or sending it to the deletion chamber. It has further become apparent to me that the Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award article was deleted without giving it an opportunity to invite debate.
This article has been in Wikipedia for several years (I do not have access to the history to establish date of entry), and it went through the scrutiny of other administrators and was allowed to remain on the basis that it passed the notability test.
Below are additional links that will shed further light on the award’s notability: As you will note, none of the links originate or point to my website. The award consists of a citation, medal and a check. The cash value of the 2007 award was approx. $2,500.
Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/341775025.cms
GoanVoice http://www.goanvoice.ca/2004/issue20/
http://www.goacom.com/PFAgoa/award.htm
http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2008/sep/19sep08.htm -- Dommartin99 ( talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
" Oh RkLawton, you just know everything and are my hero (sandwich)! cathytreks ( talk) 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "
Dear Mr Lawton my apology's to you regarding whoever who was using my account. My name will not be used or be seen here or be a bother. I changed both my name and password. -- cathitreks ( talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Why the extension of DenisHume ( talk · contribs) from one week to indefinite? Did something happen in the nearly 5 hours that he was blocked for 7 days to warrant an extension? Full disclosure: I petitioned Protonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to shorten the block, he gave an adequate reason for why my petition should be declined. But indefinite? That implies something new happened after Protonk's block or Protonk missed some very important information when limiting the block to 1 week. So, why the indefinite block? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
True. Note that this case involves more than a couple angry statements. Every post indicates the intent to violate SOAP and/or inflict incivility upon dedicated contributors. Rklawton ( talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a long precedent for indef blocking accounts that are 100% problematic, and it's clear we have such a case now, and this case is much more serious than a trivial vandalism spree. Rklawton ( talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Rklawton--
If I may be so bold, I would like to state that I respectfully disagree with your position. It is my belief that there is a fair-to-middling chance that
User:DenisHume will become a productive editor. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt now that he has strongly implied that he has calmed down.
--NBahn (
talk)
20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Rklawton, I adjusted the block to allow Denis to edit his talk page. The length remains unchanged. If you aren't happy with this, please feel free to change it back. As for your original extension of the block, I have no comment(: what I meant to say was that I refuse to outright criticize it or wholeheartedly endorse it. I pretty plainly had a comment. :) ). When I originally reached for the block button my first inclination was "indefinite", but I decided against that. I feel that an indefinite block for the user is within your discretion but I also can understand arguments that the user could come around and edit productively (though this seems exceedingly unlikely). As for the general complaints above about blocking users for having 'unacceptable views', I'm not at all convinced. Denis wasn't blocked for having unacceptable views about content or policy. He was blocked for disruption and hostility. One can hold the view that Virgin Killer's album cover represents child abuse without accusing wikipedia editors of the same. It is not suppression of speech to demand that. Protonk ( talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
I give this jointly to User:Protonk and User:Rklawton for quickly finding a way to head off rising dissension surrounding the block of User:DenisHume and to allow him to communicate with the community and, if he chooses to do so, eventually to show that he can become a valued Wikipedia editor. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means there's a resolution everyone can accept. I think we have consensus. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [50] Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”
I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!
In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article. Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Referring to your post above to me, Patricia Maier, you asked what my relationship is to Dom Martin.
I met Dom Martin many years ago in 1980 after viewing his artistic contribution of more than 60 paintings at the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument. I am a person who was most impressed by the volume, scope and style of his artwork. As his artworks have remained on continuous exhibition in the Basilica Art Gallery since the 1970’s, and my close relationship with the artist has continued to the present time, I am also a person who felt inspired to write an article about Dom Martin. It seemed apparent to me that this was a significant enough exhibition, on a grand enough scale, for a lengthy period of time, in a globally significant monument visited by millions of people, to meet the Wikipedia guidelines under “Additional Criteria” for notability.
Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]
And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”
Again, as the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.
It is not uncommon for the author of a biographical article about a living person to confer with the subject. In fact, given the problems that Wikipedia has experienced with people objecting to what people have written about them, it would seem very appropriate to go to the source to verify data. I worked on the article over a period of several weeks, at one point using Dom Martin’s computer to work on the article – perhaps this accounts for your thinking that he initiated the article, as I may have accessed Wikipedia after he had logged in using his user ID. However, I’m quite confused by your saying that the article was deleted and then recreated, as my recollection was that I initially input a rough draft on the Wikipedia edit box to work on reference links, but I thought it was only after I uploaded the final draft of the article that it was then tagged by JNW and then deleted by you. In any event, I hope the above information clears things up a bit for you.
As to your mention of verifiable notabiltiy, below are references, which span more than a quarter of a century of time, and substantiate the permanent display of the artworks of Dom Martin at the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India:
http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more
http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm
The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states: “Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”
The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.]
The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”
Please reconsider your previous position and at least give my article a fair chance for deletion review by other editors and administrators. Perhaps there may be some suggestions for modification or additional verification of the article to make it acceptable. -- Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Done a little more research and found that there was indeed a prior Dom Martin article that was deleted on November 24, 2006 for “copyvio”. If you recall, I wrote to you that I was confused about your reference to a Dom Martin article being deleted two days prior to mine, which was submitted on November 26, 2008. You had written me on your Talk page that: “Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted his article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin initiated the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article . . .”. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the coincidence of the November dates, two days apart (albeit, also two years apart) was what prompted you to assume that I was not the author of the article but rather that Dom Martin had defiantly “recreated the very same article” two days after the first one had been deleted. It is distressing for me to see that not only has my own article about Dom Martin been deleted (and I am not presently attempting to resurrect the article), but also that I am still not even given credit for having written the article, since, on the deletion page, is your notation: “. . . self-created vanity article with no independent supporting sources.” In light of the fact that my article was created more than two years after a presumably self-created article was submitted and deleted for “copyvio”, it would seem appropriate you would edit your notation on the deletion page log to omit this reference to “self-created vanity article”. Also, I did certainly submit “independent supporting sources”, i.e.: ( http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more).-- Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was looking through the history of an editor because of an issue over inserting a questionable external link to the Anne Frank article when I came across an old Abraham Lincoln death photo issue. I read through parts of it, but to be honest, not all of it, so it may have had a different outcome than how it was proceeding. In any event, I have a point about all of this. The discussion of the image claimed that it was taken at the White House during the time he was being embalmed and prepared for laying in state. I recently read a book which, at one point, discusses the autopsy proceedings for Lincoln and from that, I can't see how that image could be an authentic photo of Lincoln. The autopsy was extensively documented and I'm not thinking that mortician skills were such at that time that signs from extensive autopsy examination of Lincoln's head could be so well hidden (not to mention the magical beard) that a photo would not betray it. Quite an interesting exchange over this issue. Have a nice new year. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
just noticed that the Oxyhydrogen article references US patent 4936961 of Stanley Meyer, and also lists one image from that patent. Given the fraudulent nature of Stanley Meyer's claims (i.e. perpetual motion) these ought to be removed I think. I didn't want to edit the page myself given that I don't have an account and don't understand much of wikipedia policies.
cheers,
David 130.149.19.1 ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, just realized that the short 'Automotive' section of Oxyhydrogen already does some criticism. But since the image File:Water_fuel_cell_capacitor.png still isn't referenced in that section, it looks like a leftover from earlier edits. If kept, at least the name Stanley Meyer should be linked for clarity. David 130.149.19.1 ( talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, hope I replied to your message right haha. Yeah, I might need some help. I'm from Mt. Vernon and I kinda know some of the guys in the band. I've sent an email to Mt. Vernons local newspaper to see if they can do an online article on the band, but that might take a while to get up. XM638 ( talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes one believe it is right and proper to just take down a photo of myself and my brother? and just what is it that you are implying?, As I recall it was taken on the steps of a townhouse building in New York City in December of 1969, when I was 12 years old, by my then living uncle, and was not taken from any television programme and while it has been used elsewhere with my permmisions, by myself on several varied websites and other media regarding my early work as a child actress RKlawton. Really should it be up to me to prove MY property is MY property?, in fact under the WIKI RULE'S that you know is true, you know well you are allowed to challenge and attempt to prove me otherwise, Please do so without gile threats towards me or my account?,as I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am in my rights to question your action at the least without fear of retribution, when done properly and without malice, or am I wrong, Sir? cathie ( talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Really Sir, you do not know know me or who I really am,and I only ask for the right to appeal what you have implied?, I am not a liar or a thief and I claim the rights to me in my photograph of in spite of words to the contrary, Surely it is a just a mistake perhaps in the warning, and so you need to know the facts, may I write you at your personal address?, that should satisfy you regarding my claims as fact.
In the days ahead may I post another Photograph but not this specific photo per your specific written warning and letter of the Wiki TOS, is that alright?
The new photograph posted shall be taken from the same time period, and then you shall be able to say perhaps "Gee I was mistaken" to me, and not challenge the new one, all under the fair WIKI rules, Is this acceptable for you Sir, Mr. RKLawton?, In the meanwhile I shall abide as you say. Xie xie -- cathie ( talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The picture was put up mistakenly, sorry I picked the wrong picture, I better get out my glasses b4 I pick my photos out of my vault! my bad. -- cathie ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my eyes had failed in my posting of a picture some years ago, at a page I never look at, are you trying to bait me on a honest mistake?, well Sir, PLEASE assume good faith and think otherwise?, as being mean and hurtful to me is not the answer, Please I beg, this not like before when we debated about Lincoln before you became a Administrator Sir, I respect you! and so it is with respect and respectfully I am asking you to grant me leave to go as I grant you your due, and say goodnight and good day, and peace.... my old "debating" friend? -- cathie ( talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't hurt me anymore I am half blind and struggle even to type a few words, soon will be using a brallie computer as my eyesight loss is QUITE degenerative, may u at least pity me! I am very sorry for putting up the wrong picture and pray you will give me some dignity and allow me to say goodbye for now, Sir. -- cathie ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
please go to my commons talk page, it has the specific information on what to delete, which is all but two photographs. i trust sincerely we can get off to a fresh and new start RK, Please note I did as you asked, and right away.-- cathie ( talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
what you aSKED ME TO DO I WILL DO as you requested, I am currently in a state of shock and need a few hours to prepare everything before I attempt to deo everything just as you ask, I AM ONLY ASKING YOU to give me untill usa monday to do all as you require, will you not give me this small amount of time RK, PLEASE I BEG OF YOU! -- cathie ( talk) 07:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish to continue editing at the Wikipedia portion of wiki and I promise to keep civil but it is not very nice to see people ganging up on an innocent girl, and that would be me, here's why....
I cannot help it if my Uncle Malachi left me an assortment of thousands of photographs and slides and negatives and such and then I published them here and elswhere unknowingly if it was done wrongly, sorry.
Also there has been no intentional lie or fabrication regarding the provenance of the MANY materials I was bequethed in his will, they were published here in good faith with the information I had at the time, I know nothing else about it and I am not a liar Sir, and regardless of others opinions I am as innocent as a new born baby in this at the least, and feel very hurt by certain people passing judgement upon me for just trying to share some material that was passed on to me, for what is wrong with me doing that Sir?
Please, you will do as you will, but due to this situation I have no plans to publish any more at the wikimedia commons anyway unless there is a well deserved apology to me, also I have contributed several photos that were of my own collection that are scans of people, Like the Liccoln death photograph, and others and such over 100 years old and are therefore not subject to copyright laws, and also my created animated stick figure .gif,etc.
I only tried to share with the world good things I was given, or do in fact have ownership rights to...so there is no confession but the simple truth I have just given to Mr. Lupo and to you most especially Sir, Mr. Lawton.
My very best of regards to you, Sir. -- cathie ( talk) 19:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Please do reprimand me as is your duty but it can be done without gile and no threats towards me or my account, If there were "mistakes" on my part in the past, that is where they are, in the past RK! Honestly, Please know that I live a much more serene life now than a long time ago and desire to avoud conflicts, with anyone, most especially you, and even in the back and forth "discussions" last night I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am still in my rights to question Authority,yet with a respectful manner?
Please take your actions as you see fit RK, I too wish to empty my wikicommons page of non rights published materials, however there are some I published that are mine, or the copyright has lapsed by 100 years and should not be removed, but do not know what to do or understand how to do it to make it look right, I tried to but I am at a loss and cannot fathom the hows and wherebys of doing it.
As to my wiki editing I should not have a fear of retribution from anyone, because since I was suspended that last time, several years ago I have learned proper manners and have not done anything wrong, and what has been done was donr properly and without malice, I have shown in recent years of times I am a polite, even if I am a closely watched editor.
In conclusion please? ask whoever it is in charge at the commons to get rid of those silly uploaded images as per your order policys?, I want to see them gone too but cannot figure out how and lastly and finally only seek to do the right for the wikipeadia, and our small ball of dust in space and my 875 edits show that at least I tried to help, even if I often failed!, what I did was done to improve a page or give a proper fact about something I really know and give backing evidence from a NPOV, and if my own fantasys sometimes crept into the page, it was because I have been at times over-enthusiastic in my editing, I give you my word that non such has happened of the last couple of years at least, Nor would it ever happen again and it hasn't.
I wanted to be loved...cherished and remembered...and have it said that, "well, at least she tried to make it a better world, even in her own strange yet caring way".
So is this goodbye RK...goodbye?, and truly only the very best of wishes to you, for no matter what you think, and suprisingly as it may sound, I have really always looked up to you RK, Pray for me please that there may be a Heaven so I may go and see my family and friends, I am feeling so lonely and with little hope.-- cathie ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, RK? I would ask just one thing, but first I want you to know that I now realise that what I did was wrong, innocent mistake or not in your eyes or those of others I am now all too painfully aware of the mistake, and ask forgiveness in that I be allowed to continue to be allowed to communicate within the wiki community to show you and others that I am a valued Wikipedia editor at times and have turned in to administrators edits by those who had done them malicously and when I saw an error on a date regarding a person or an issue I put it forth and corrected it whenever I could I do help!, please do not ban me, I swear an outh to you I shall do the right things and not allow myself to be a burden on your time, and only a asset to the community, is my plea. Most sincerely to you RKLawton and the wiki's as a whole. Cathie -- cathie ( talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am quite tired of arguing about this , howabout we just sit tight? I will have the photographs up you demand and then everyone will be happy?, what I wrote last night at the commons was out of shear fatigue from being on the chopping block wrongly, I said I was sorry for my mistakes of the long past, but It is hard to take it when misundertandings, about me must be listened to, and listen to these storys which are not true in essence from my perspective Sir, without at least trying to stand up for the truth as far as I know it, and I would like to continue as an editor and am being very polite about the entire matter, I am just askiong, pleading and trying to make ammends RK, and am not questioning your authority, nor making any legal threats or anything unkind to you or anyone Sir! , I though that maybe we could better sort things out with a mediation , which is not disrepecting you as a Administrator, but I only want to do the right things on WIKI in a NPOV way with you and everyone, Again I am sorry Sir , I wont let you down this time, I know my very place here is in danger of being eliminated and I think after you see my photographs and other proofs that then when you know all the facts we can be friends! How I wish we could just talk on the phone, then you would know by my voice my sincerity in what I am saying to you here, and no disrespect is meant at all and I only want to be a good wiki, and make you all proud of me. -- cathie ( talk) 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
congratulations, i lost my cool and you won. your plan worked well it was just a matter of time before i blew my stack...sorry you could not have been a friend instead of an enemy...good luck and goodbye lawton. i wont see you again! -- kathy-treks-on ( talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Woah, not quite sure how I ended up slapping you with a personal attack template. Either Twinkle screwed up somewhere there or I did. Sorry about that! - Vianello ( talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Mea culpa, was trying to click on an IP edit to an article at my watchlist and accidentally rolled back your user talk. Oops. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
FINALLY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!!!
NOW PLEASE OFFER ME A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR KEEPING THOSE PICS????
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.248 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE EMAIL ME AT mo.sayan@gmail.com
To satisfy my curiosity, please tell me why you undid my cleaning up of this project page. You'll have noticed that I didn't delete any of the information; all I did was bring the page in line with the generally used format. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that you referred to me with "his/her". You're even more cautious than I am about gender! I once created {{ genderneutral}}, but I also often use "he/she". But I've never used it for someone who used a known gender-specific first name. Most people refer to me as "he", but you can refer to me any way you want, I'm not easily offended by such things. — Sebastian 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a legitimate question, it's trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the offer. I was wondering if you could restore a few article to my talk archive so i can see excatly what condition the article was in before they were deleted (I believe they are more than notable now). If its not too much trouble could you copy:
The most current version of List of big-bust models and performers to User talk:Valoem/deleted/List of big-bust models and performers
And if possible the best version of Allie Sin/ Naughty Nati (at your discretion) to User talk:Valoem/deleted/Allie Sin. Valoem talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Same editor pulling same nonsense at Prescott Bush. THF ( talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had somehow overlooked that I was editing your user page instead of your talk page. Normally, I do not edit other users' user pages (unless absolutely necessary). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made use of your editing statistics for comparison purposes only at User:Tyrenius/THF#Collect_and_Rklawton re. this post at AN/I. There is no suggestion whatsoever that you have any involvement in any sockpuppetry. Ty 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about scrubbing. Why did you revert that? Do you not want to know where the dreaded 'anti-semitic conspiracy theories' originated from? Because I can tell you for a fact it was Henry Ford that brought it into worldwide circulation. Are you denying that happened as well, or does it bother your collective conscience as an American? 84.28.82.149 ( talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Bye bye. Rklawton ( talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Any ANI complaint best comes from you, but I have compiled a list of diffs on the subject. The resignation is in Archive520. THF ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the fixing the Image copyright problem for me. Also, regarding the cluster bomb, that seems to be not a problem anymore. If it turns out to be one, could you please post it at WT:SLR as I'm usually not active here anymore. — Sebastian 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to burst your petty little power trip, but it isn't exactly fair game to ban someone just because he was right and you were proven wrong. When someone accuses another of being an 'anti-semite' just because the ADL has labelled him as such, I want to point out to to the Wikipedia audience that however horrible it may be, 'anti-semitism' actually originated from the United States, not Nazi-Germany, though it later adopted it from the likes of Madison Grant and Charles Davenport. Wikipedia's own article on Henry Ford states as much, yet when I bring it up in a Talk section, I get accused by the likes of you for vandalism and banned.
It is the sheer height of hypocrisy that you can go around calling people like me a 'crank' and 'conspiracy theorist', yet I get BANNED by you just because I call you a 'deceptive little creature', which you clearly have demonstrated you are. You can CALL ME all sorts of names, yet I in return am not allowed that privilege. You are deliberately colluding with THF and Collect (two other sockpuppets on Prescott Bush's page) to get rid of as much 'inconvenient' information as possible. Perhaps it's just because you're really clueless and really don't know alot - that would be at least the half-way respectable scenario, and the least weighing on your conscience.
You want your audience (who I presume you want to delude, that is, unless you really DID NOT KNOW Henry Ford published The Elders Of Zion) to remain in a paradigm - without ever knowing where anti-semitism originated from and what a joke it is to see the ones who PROMOTED the concept of 'racial purity' and 'Aryan superiority' to Hitler to remain free of persecution. You use that 'ploy', that 'slogan', 'anti-semite', 'crank', as a silencing technique. It's a deceptive con-game, especially when you never get at the heart of the matter - where the anti-semitism came from, who started the ball rolling, and hey, guess what? The source of origin is a very unlikely one, and very unfortunate and inconvenient indeed for the self-righteous Americans always eager to trot out charges of 'anti-semitism'.
Unfortunately for you, and your sources, Prescott Bush's collusion with the Nazis is a well-established fact, and is well-documented in numerous high-profile books on the subject, including Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot. What you have constructed thus far are 'strawmen' arguments and falling back on 'guilt by association'. You peddle establishment sources as the ultimate harbinger of truth, perhaps KNOWING or NOT KNOWING the complete collusion of mainstream news with the establishment. More unfortunate for you, still, is that President Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, the father of JFK and countless other Americans clearly believed in the Nordic/Aryan races' superiority and viewed the Nazis as good. Worse still is that FDR refused to take Jewish refugees from Nazi-Germany. Even worse, university professors were making statements in 1936 to the tune of 'Hitler is beating us at our own game - race hygiene and sterilization'. This is all documented in books such as Edwin Black's 'War Against The Weak' - and don't come with your silly, puny little slogan such as 'conspiracy theorist' just because you don't care and don't want to know.
Unlike you and your petty insults and one-liners, I can back up all these claims with facts and more. I can only conclude that you're a weak-minded yuppie who really does not CARE about the facts, but whether or not you can hang out with your equally deceptive Wikipedians, gain some 'street' credits and keep people in a deceitful paradigm while slandering people who want to break out of your make-believe reality. And of course, being an American, you want to uphold this concocted, grand noble myth that you're the good guys and you fought Nazism. I can only tell you haven't looked into the eugenics history of your own country, or the Royal Institute of Intl. Affairs Conference of 1938. You didn't read Edwin Black's War Against The Weak, haven't you? You haven't read Eugenics And Other Evils by Chesterton, huh?
We live in the information age, sonny. Ignorance is no veil to hide behind - and neither are petty and childish retorts like 'crank', 'anti-semite' or 'conspiracy theorists'. So lose that beard of yours and that smug grin (BTW, not to hurt your ego, but you don't look all that great), quit being so gullible, because I have a newsflash for you, if you keep sticking your head in the sand, you're gonna get hurt real bad too, bubba - by your own masters. The only thing you're doing is discrediting Wikipedia even further by engaging in clear deception.
And if it serves your power trip, go ahead, ban me again. Do what thou wilt. Do your worst, 'bubba'. Show me your power!!!! (ROFLMAO) Your Internet is gonna get shut down soon, bubba, replaced by Internet2, and given the futures market, Jimmy Wales the Wall Street hustler is not going to be there to give it another tug - so there goes your admin privileges. Just know that I don't grovel to the likes of you - I don't bow down and I do not let myself get silenced just because some deluded individual has familiarized himself with a 'slogan' that is somehow intended to put me down. OK, bubba? 84.28.82.149 ( talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Unsure of your reason to alter, and basically remove, that section from the WBC page. I didn't quite understand the reason for that section's title ("Announced Protests" seemed fitting for basic entry in "Activities and Statements" due to similarity in content), but I don't see how it can be used to arrive at the assumption that such listings were "to provide a list of announced protests" - instead, I assumed it be used to indicate those that were announced/planned and possibly had not occurred or had yet to occur. Note the wording used in those entries: "WBC threatened to"; "the church declared intent to"; "announced they would".
In other words, it seems that your objection to those entries was based on their potential of use to promote WBC, even with positivity. I'd hope that a concentrated re-reading might leave you with another opinion.
Those listings provided details on actions and statements by WBC that continually made the news, to the point of their being of current history status.
I submitted the last entry to that category, and because it was in today’s news. It also includes reference to other notable and wikied names. Regroce ( talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might want to consider adding yourself to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with that user. Cheers Kyle1278 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
First off, there's no reason to get all huffy and butthurt over it. Secondly, I was in error. I was confusing that image with the image that is frequently attributed to being Michael Murphy's MoH. You'd probably be received a lot better if you'd calm down and not resort to threats and flexing of your "muscle." 98.220.54.37 ( talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, you are being discussed here. -- Tom (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
About that, since no one else has done it yet I've come here to advise you that making personal attacks isn't allowed. You know that, so don't do it. My advice would be to apologise. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but what exactly was his personal attack? Explain please. Also suggesting that you could block him for "harrasment" because he complianed about your behaviour is clearly oversterpping the mark. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a sport. I don't play games. The IP/editor has already admitted to making each of the mistakes I've noted, so I do not think an additional warning over this matter is warranted. If you wish to provide further guidance to anyone, then consider reviewing all the various AN/I and talk page edits and consider whether the various participants created an entirely unnecessary Wiki-drama over a matter that was properly and appropriately closed. Rklawton ( talk) 00:56, 8 April 2009 (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. |
Hey there Robert, how have you been? Awhile back I gave you a huge list of Sprigfield sites that I said I needed photos of. I am not particularly concerned about most of those requests, you can feel free to disregard them, in fact I would quite enjoy being able to do them myself, of course don't let that stop you. : ) I was, however, wondering if it might be possible for you to obtain photos of the Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop in Springfield, if you happen to be around there anytime. I would very much like to expand the article but don't really want to unless I can illustrate it. Basically some good exterior shots, the whole of the building and, importantly, anything associated with the drive thru window system, and what would be really great is some shots of the interior, a great bonus for any article and sometimes hard to obtain. Anyway, if you cannot do it I will understand but if you could let me know either way that would be great. Thanks and take care. IvoShandor 11:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You aren't an owner of wikipedia are you cowboy? -- Elred 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
... for holding the fort over on my talk page while I was away! I really appreciate it! - Alison ☺ 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. The picture you took of the Dairy Barn represents what's there, of course. I was just hoping that there might be a way to take it from a more flattering angle. Does that make sense? I guess it's the difference between George W. Bush's official presidential photo and the shot of him falling off of a Segway PT. They both reprsent him, but the first shows him in a better light (the second one is pretty funny though). At least Tech saved the barn — for which I am grateful — but until they show more interest in it, is there a way of getting a picture that makes it look less ugly-ish, aside from dressing it up in a skirt or putting cheerleaders in front of it. I added it to the Texas Tech template so hopefully more traffic will be headed to the article. Let me know what you think. → Wordbuilder 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have discovered an apparent sockpuppet, however he is not conducting mutiple edits, so I'm not sure if I can use WP:SOCK. However, I noticed that User talk:BS 0013 redirects to User talk:BS 13. Are they the same? And should something be done? Thanks Tiggerjay 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, i just found it, should i continue to watch the page for any more developments? Chaza 93 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I considered posting that link was because all of the statistics in that section of the messageboard are from credible sources in the science community and from the government. That website acts as a repository where you can find numerous childhood obesity studies from various reliable sources, all in one location. Generally I agree that I wouldn't take random statistics off a messageboard, but they really do have a credible childhood obesity "database" like setup.
... for that. I so don't need this today. Thanks for keeping watch - Alison ☺ 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct, trivia sections should not be removed. If there's important information, it should be merged with the main article. But anything unimportant should be deleted. A mention on Robot Chicken is hardly important information. 17Drew 04:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Robert. I noticed you've been reverting external link additions by User:Earpearcing and User:Cybergirl215. These appear to be sockpuppets of Belginusanl, so feel free to list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when edits like those crop up again. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers - Gobeirne 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
First I'd like to provide some background information. You are no doubt aware of the events leading up to Jagzthebest's initial indefinite block. A bit more than a week ago I found that Jagzthebest was using an alternate account, MasterJag ( talk · contribs), to circumvent his block. MasterJag's edit history consisted of minor corrections to Tekken-related articles and a nasty snipe at you on Jagzthebest's talk page [1]. Less then a day after I blocked the account, I received a conciliatory e-mail from Jagzthebest offering the suggested image and rationale example I had requested almost two months prior. Although the image and rationale were still not in line with Wikipedia policy, I assumed good faith of the effort and unblocked Jagzthebest's account. I warned him that uploading images in contravention of policy, insulting any editor, and other unbecoming behavior would result in an indefinite block.
Jagzthebest used this opportunity wisely, and after a few initial questions, he was back to constructive editing and I had no reason to monitor his contributions. Then, yesterday, I received a frankly distressing and unsightly message from Jagzthebst [2]. What was odd about this is that he had chosen to reproduce the profane vandalism as the message header, followed by "see that above? some guy wrote it under your comment on my page. now why was that?". Aside from the dubious reasoning behind even framing the message in such a manner, I was concerned about why some IP I had never interacted with would place a personal attack beneath my comment on someone's talk page. That is, until I looked at user:71.125.83.31's other contributions. Among these were edits to several Tekken character articles, articles never before edited by Jagzthebest, and changing another user's external link to point to [3]. Since the IP's contributions indicated someone from the United Kingdom who was interested in Tekken and went out of his way to identify and attack a comment on the talkpage of Jagzthebest, it was rather obvious that this was a sockpuppet. Since I did not closely monitor Jagzthebest's contributions or talk page, I did not notice the addition of the profane jab, which was for some reason reproduced in full on my talkpage a day later. It is my conclusion that, due to the previously documented immaturity and tendency to personally attack users, this IP was Jagzthebest attempting to slide in, for some weird reason, an insult against a user who had previously blocked him. After warning him of an indefinite block for any unbecoming behavior, I felt it necessary to follow through.
I would like to apologize for not leaving a reason in the block log, it seems I was to eager to skip to the "block this user" button. This has no doubt caused some problems with Jagzthebest's unblock request and I did not mean to inconvenience the review by other admins. Now that you are aware of the reasons and story behind this block, I would appreciate your review. If you think that my actions were too harsh or unfounded, feel free to unblock Jagzthebest's account. After many e-mails, blocking, tagging, and unblocking sockpuppets/alternate accounts, bizarre questions and personal attacks, I no longer wish to have anything to do with this user or monitoring his actions. I do not think that he has the requisite maturity or judgment to become a responsible contributor and I do not wish to babysit him. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It appears that after all the e-mail counseling, Jagzthebest still does not understand Wikipedia image use policy [4]. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have appreciated a discussion, but the Lincoln Flag section is not a copyright violation. I am the author of the section on Wikipedia and on the original source, http://www.united-states-flag.com/lincoln-flag.html. I have placed a blatant GNU Free Documentation License on the bottom of the original article. Writers would probably appreciate a warning before you go and delete their writing while they are in the process of editing it. ( MandyBarberio 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
I cannot find any restrictions of that nature in the About Wikipedia content sections. I am a copywriter for several websites, but I am not the owner of the websites, so I'm not necessarily "self-published." Could you please show me any useful information on this topic, since I can find none? ( MandyBarberio 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)). (RfC)
Also, I am not sure how describing how an artifact involved in the assasination of Abraham Lincoln is in any way self-promotional. I appreciate that you changed your reason for deleting the article, but your reason is only your opinion of it. Other people might find that information useful. ( MandyBarberio 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).
The link used is original content, and the relevant sources are listed along with the original article. The article is purely informational. If the section should be an independent article, that is fine, but I don't want to create an article if you are going to delete it again. ( MandyBarberio 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) (RfC)
Well obviously that is your opinion on the subject. So, you are telling me that if I provide a link to the original article, you will nominate it for deletion again, regardless of the copyright notices and everything else? It seems that every editor has different "rules" and uses references to try to prove them. I wish to have another editor review this whole situation because I feel that the deletion was unfair with reasoning opinionated and unproven. How can I have another editor review the situation now instead of wasting more of my time rewriting the article to have it nominated for deletion? ( MandyBarberio 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
And that would be a copyright infringement, so the article would undoubtedly be deleted for that reason. Is there another category I could create, and list the original article under that? ( MandyBarberio 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Yes, I had initially included the two sources I used: http://www.pikehistory.org/lincoln.htm & http://www.nps.gov/archive/foth/index2.htm, along with the link to the original article. So basically the only problem with the content I posted was its location in the Lincoln Assasination article? Everything else was just a misunderstanding? ( MandyBarberio 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Will do. Thanks. ( MandyBarberio 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
It's alright. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm just figuring things out. ( MandyBarberio 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
FYI, posted to MandyBarberio's talk page: I respectfully disagree with Rklawton's good faith opinion that the Lincoln flag info should go in a separate article. My personal opinion is that it is appropriate for the Lincoln assassination article, and that there may not be enough information to merit a separate article. Perhaps a redirect of "Lincoln Flag" to the assassination article would be OK. But I think all of this is a matter of opinion. As long as the information is properly sourced I'm agreeable with either location. And I think if the only legitimate sources have advertisements, it's OK to cite those. Ward3001 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Posted on my talk page: "Spam (but we're stuck with it because of the GDFL license unless we want to rewrite the section). Status: resolved."
I can remove the GDFL license from the original article, but then I'm sure I'd be tagged for a copyright violation. That is why I posted it there in the first place. ( MandyBarberio 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Will you come to my aid if I do that, and someone still posts a copyright violation? ( MandyBarberio 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Okay, I have redone the Lincoln Flag article, expanding it to include the 3 Lincoln Assassination flags that are accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Assassination_Flags. To try to solve the copyright problems, I only cited my original aritlce in the "Other Resources" section, and I will remove the free copyright notice from the original article, so others know it is a realiable source. ( MandyBarberio 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
im asking you to please unblock ibm44, it has been over a month now - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intel44 ( talk • contribs)
My understanding of the word "writer" is someone that has written a book. Dr. Gomez has written a book and is writing his second book. Besides that in Cuba he would also write various articles in legal journals. What is your definition of a writer? And what is Wikipedia's? Callelinea 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callelinea"
Thank you for your advice on talk pages. I will take it on board. Archifile 04:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that you are not in the habit of placing your comments on other users' talk pages smack dab in the middle of someone else's comments. I saw that I had a new message, opened my discussion page, and looked for nearly five minutes before I found your comments—located between the first and second points of another user's discussion of diacritics. I presume that this wasn't deliberate, but I can't imagine how one could have done it accidentally, either. Some people get in such a rage over things that they don't really see what they're doing; but not knowing you I cannot presume that, either. Well, if you were flying off the handle, better that your loss of control occurred on my talk page and not while driving down the street where you could have actually hurt someone.
I completely disagree with your characterization of my tag removal as disruption. I am familiar with WP: POINT, and I sincerely believe that it does not apply here. Why? There is no defined period under which the RDT is supposed to remain. Most of the ones that I have removed have been over a month old, some over three months old. Is that disruption? If not, what is? Where is the line drawn? Clearly, 24 hours is too soon for removal, if one subscribes to the notion that such tags serve a purpose. But is one week? I sincerely believe I do a favor if I "update" the encyclopedia where out of date information exists. Don't you do the same? But when is an RDT out of date? Where is that guideline written? It may very well exist, but I have yet to have anyone show me, and I am not familiar enough with the "backstage" of Wikipedia to find it myself.
Anyway, I provided a rationale for my actions. The courtesy of responding to my points, before threatening an editor who has a two-year history of editing without a single block or even a threat thereof, might be expected. Unschool 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome photos. Thanks a bunch, greatly appreciated. : ) IvoShandor 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi this is Jagzthebest (I'm logged out and writing from my IP address). This message is about the protection template on my page. Anither admin has replaced yours with one which is more specific. However the template you originally set was supposed to expire on August 7th 2007 (Today). The Template has not yet been removed. I think the admin who placed this template did not set it to expire. Could you please remove the template? thanks. 90.196.241.112 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (Jagzthebest)
Rklawton - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There is one on Arvand River in Khoramshahr and there is one on Karun, they look different as well. Check the talk page, and PManderson's comment. -- Mardavich 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have written to a friend who is a former resident of Mohammareh/Khorramshahr and he confirms what you have said - this is a bridge over the Karoon and the Shatt al-Arab cannot be seen. The shipwrecks are probably left over from the Iran-Iraq War as the Karoon and Mohammareh were the worst affected places in the war, so perhaps the photograph can be used on relevant articles, although I am not convinced this is the best illustration of the Arvand Zone (Arvand is the Farsi name for Shatt al-Arab). I quite like the photograph.-- ▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me; how did you find out about it? To be honest, I didn't know there was news coverage about that user. All I did was delete the user/user talk page because they'd been in CAT:TEMP for some time! I didn't expect to get slightly mentioned in a news article for the deletion of those pages. Wow... Acalamari 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you're new to editing the article, I'll assume that you're innocently seeing a very long edit conflict afresh. Basically, two editors, Getaway and Verklempt have been using the article for about two years as a means of writing a soapbox editorial about how much they dislike Churchill... and pointedly, not writing a biography that conforms with WP:BLP. Most especially, the large-scale tightenings of WP:BLP over that period (starting with its creation) mean that most of what they have added are policy violations on Wikipedia.
The form their edits have almost always taken (after I pushed back hard on completely unsubstantiated opinion-mongering) is putting in cited facts, usually quotes from various third parties who dislike Churchill; and put there in such a way as to overshadow and outweigh any factual discussion of the biography subject. The Barry quote is a good example: it doesn't add any additional information about Churchill's ethnic background, which is already perfectly well covered in the section, it just provides and ad hoc opportunity to insert a quote from someone criticizing Churchill. I see you are an experienced editor, so you know that mere verifiability is not enough, you also need balance, and avoiding undue weight. The Barry quote violates this aspect of WP:BLP rather grossly. LotLE× talk 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI:
Although you might look a long time for someone who genuinely denies that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, I don't see how enforcing specific government types in the infobox and having "Dictatorship" as one of them is any different policy-wise from the category or the list. Gazpacho 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the ref links on the Mashinini article. I should have done it in the first place, but for some reason find that particular task rather daunting. Now that it is done I can and will improve/expand citations for the article. -- AStanhope 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
User:AryeitskiySaldat is obviously evading the block by editing as IP Special:Contributions/68.222.34.149 at Nazi Germany. I'm not sure if I'm on solid ground reverting him under WP:3RR#Exceptions - it seems borderline to me, so I've left it. Nor could I find a page to report this kind of situation. Pls block the IP as well (or advise as to how I should proceed). Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Another user replaced a "free image" that I had on the Rick Ankiel article with this fair-use AP one Image:CGNQzHVu.jpg. I replaced this obviously "replaceable" fair use one in the article back with the free one. I had to chuckle at the irony of that but I figured you would approve. Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! BTW, Archive your talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi RK. Yes, it's a relatively obscure term all right but known in the legal profession. I'd say Frank, being a lawyer, is using it in that way. From the Latin, it literally means, "flourished", which is a nice way to refer to someone's life IMO. But given that Frank has a serious amount on his plate right now and given that it's in userspace, I'd personally just let it go. Over to you - Alison ☺ 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Replied here. → AA ( talk) — 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Revert Rule
Sorry about that - didn't check the edit history when three edit conflicts came up, which caused my breaking the rule inadvertently. Djg2006 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Could you please take a look at the long edit war on Perro de Presa Canario?
This is a breed of dog that has been responsible for two highly publicized fatal maulings in the United States over the past 6 years. I have dispassionately included summaries and citations for both of these events in the article and a small cabal of breeders/owners/sellers insists on removing all references to the killings citing "hysteria" on my part.
For my part, I'm not taking a POV wrt this article beyond believing that the maulings are relevant and should be included in the article. The breed-lovers who insist on removing the mauling citations are clearly taking a strong POV and exerting it upon the article.
Would you lend your eyes to the issue, svp? Thank you. -- AStanhope 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See endless back and forth on this issue including a good-faith offer directly to Astanhope to come to some sort of constructive solution - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Astanhope&diff=prev&oldid=137688886 - which, by the way, went completely ignored - perhaps he was unable to respond and the offer escaped his mind while in the midst of one of his numerous disciplinary timeouts.
I'm not a breeder, dealer, etc. (see PdPC discussion, item 1) Second, this prolific vandal, Astanhope (or one of several sock puppet identities he's been posting under - Gauche, Timeonmyside1, 75.51.66.234 - while being blocked for vandalism) has been working the article for full hysterical bedwetter impact by habitually reposting, for the past several months, the bold header "Attacks Against People," and various gratuitous representations of the gruesome details. Third, it's a well-established fact that the dogs involved in the Whipple tragedy were, in fact, mastiff mixes: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45596.asp - and you know, if it's in an actual ODT publication, it must be true - I seem to recall one of his multiple identities making this argument at some point. Frangible 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
All baseball sources say 1917 - and the Rizzuto family has confirmed the date. (including BB Biographical Committee, Retrosheet, BBRef.com, Ron Liebman, etc.) The mistake came when Rizzuto mentioned in a few interviews that he lied by a year when he played (then listed as 1918) but error was corrected decades ago (soon after his 1956 retirement as player). Administrators to Wikipedia accepted 1917. NY Post is also, at times, proven to be an unreliable source. (DDNB picked up wrong year from an old Wikipedia listing - since corrected). -- KrazyChicken 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Robert, have you considered archiving this page? It's really, really long, I had to scroll for a bit just to get past the contents. :) IvoShandor 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's funny, but I seem to have a shadow on Wikipedia called AhvaziKaka. He crops up specifically to contradict me - in fact, his account appears to be almost completely dedicated to this task: [5] [6] [7]. Having only a few edits on his account and having not contributed for over a month, this user suddenly decides to make a comment on a proposal for a Wiki project on Arabs, naturally contradicting me [8]. The purpose appears to be that he is the "true voice" of Ahwazi Arabs, and I am the "false voice". His third ever edit on Wikipedia was a welcome page to a one-purpose account [9], which was used to revert changes on articles I happened to be editing at the time. What do you make of this? I've had this kind of stalking before, but not by an account specifically set up to target me. I want to assume good faith, but perhaps I am being paranoid?-- ▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If neither of you are willing to degenerate this discussion into rudeness or other serious rule breaking, then I'll be forced to sit back and not block anyone. So please, if you are going to set the example for other Wikipedian's by calmly discussing your differences on my talk page, just let me know, and I'll paste barnstars on both your talk pages. Rklawton 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, I apoligize if I was being rude, can you please look into the issue the Hamadan page? This term "Hamadan" is most commonly used in English as an alternative spelling of Hamedan the city, not the tribe ( Hamadan tribe). You can check this by a simple search (plz see google [20] Britannica Encyclopedia [21] Columbia Encyclopedia [22]), . I am affraid someone will remove the redirect again, I appriciate it if you looked into this issue cloesly. AhvaziKaka
Obviously, u know nothing about the breeds history. Chessy999 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You know that "Aryeitskiy Saldat" guy you blocked for a month for repeated 3RR violations on all those Nazi-related articles, and for block evasion?
His name is Russian for "Aryan Soldier"; as such, his block has been extended indefinitely. DS 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That kinda takes away some of the fun, doesn't it? Rklawton 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (from Bernard Okun) I feel that I have been unfairly blocked from Wikipedia, after I made a few constructive edits to Phil Rizzuto - and removed some unconstructive stuff. There is a birth certificate available which confirms his date of birth. When I was told of the 3-revert rule, I stopped further edits. Also, I am not a sockpuppet of anyone else (See my talk page). If you can't unblock me, please inform me of the process I must go through to be unblocked. All this is a bit of a shock. (Bernard Okun, August 28, 10:53 EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.161 ( talk) 14:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my discussion about the Ortolan Bunting, but it isn't for you to remove other people's discussion comments. And, since I added a link to the actual article that did not exist, your note "see above" is not applicable. WiccaWeb 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Would "Juche Communist State" be acceptable? Speedboy Salesman 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you're an admin or not, but I see you've had prior troubles with User:Callelinea, so I thought I'd ask you for help in my current edit war with her. He/she keeps placing unsourced material in the Pedro Zamora article. If you look at the Edit Summaries in our last few edits, you'll see what it's about. I also began a discussion on that Talk Page to further elaborate my point of view, and invited Callelinea to join it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for quickly replying to my page protection request for the Steve Fossett article. Those IP edits were very quickly getting out of hand, so you've saved everyone a lot of work now. Thanks again and see you around. Answerthis 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The previous discussion on Category:Homophobia did result in a deletion. As an administrator, it was not really my decision to delete that category. Rather it was my opinion that there was consensus in the discussion for deletion. As I recall there was clear consensus for deletion. Apparently Category:Homophobes has now survived two CfDs. For many editors there is a difference between the two. Thanks for the notice, but I see no reason for me to participate in the discussion. I will add that category discussion pages probably do not get much of a following. Vegaswikian 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Norm watches too much Thomas the Tank Engine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Calton | Talk 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a template, yes. It said that if you objected to the article being deleted for any reason, to simply remove the template. Why would you threaten to block me for that? There are other templates you can use that direct people to a talk page that are not to be removed. I also note the last line of the template I removed states that if removed, that template should not be put back up.
I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just seeing that every few days, there are some articles up for deletion that deserve at least some consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 ( talk) 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't remember if I ever said so or not but you took some mighty fine photos of the Maid Rite shop in Springfield. I wonder, since you seem to be from that region, do you have anything of the Benjamin Stephenson House in Edwardsville. There isn't an article yet but the family is pretty important to northern Illinois history, at least the son, anyway. (Cough, cough-archive-cough.) IvoShandor 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you archived! Congratulations on getting the Miszabot. :-) R. Baley 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:KiddBeatz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
B1atv
21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I followed your instructions up until the edit part... I think I created a new wiki for Bigshow with corrections by mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bigshow_radio_la&action=submit this is it. I made it very encyclopediaesq. Does this meet Wikipedias guidelines? ( Hernanzepol 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi, I wanted to create a resource of PowerPoint templates, and add detailed info on how to create them, their design aesthetics, etc. So I put in a few lines to get started, and then you deleted that saying it is redundant? Can you help me with this? How can I create any content when you delete stuff that I would painstakingly put together?
Thanks -- have a great day.
Geeteshbajaj 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Somehow its just too stereotypical that this is from a municipality in Kentucky. Its almost like a bad joke.
While I'm here, I suggest considering archiving your page - it is awfully long, and actually lagged on loading for me. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the little cleanup on my talk page. :) Didn't know we're allowed to remove pointless messages such as those.
Arendedwinter
15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop undoing Archifile's edits on his talk page. It's his talk page, and short of re-wording your edits, he's free to do with it what he wants. Your history of edits on Archifile's talk page bear a strong resemblance to harassment, and I won't allow that to continue. Rklawton 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my attempted edits. I was trying to fix the clumped edit links, and something wasn't working properly -- Rpyle731 (logged out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.145.66 ( talk) 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just add a template to the top that it needs references because i can't find it and that is a lot of info that you deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpoo ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My bad then Shawnpoo 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Robert, sorry so impersonal, in a rush, got to go. :)
IvoShandor 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I thought you'd like me to notify you that you've violated WP:AGF by immediately assuming that I was out to disrupt Wikipedia (which is actually the opposite of what everyone else seems to think). That and I thought it'd be interesting to see how you like it when someone immediately tags you with some sort of "you broke the rules!" notification. Try to be a little more WP:CIVIL next time. -- Cheeser1 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've full-protected both his user and talk pages, as the racist ramblings keep being re-added. Feel free to unprotect if you think I'm being too harsh... I've deleted the offending material, but left the rest of the talk in place. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey, buzzing through, more deliveries to make, see ya around for surely. :)
The
WikiProject Illinois Newsletter (Beta) "Post Census Report" Vol. I, No. 1, Issue 1, October 2007 If you would like to delete this message, the original is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Newsletter/Post Census Report | |
On October 4, 2007 WikiProject Illinois embarked on a membership census. The census was the project's first since its establishment on September 24, 2005. Due to the nature of the wiki, and the two years that had passed, it seemed likely that many of the project's older members were no longer active. The project page had grown stagnant and the census provided an opportunity to see who was still around, slaving away in their own corner of the encylopedia, unknown to the rest of the Illinois editing world. Well, now, the tabulation is complete, and after a notice at the Community Portal, we have gained a couple new members amongst the cluster of project veterans who returned to sign up. Of the 55 members listed on the project membership list on October 4, 26 editors returned to the list to "resign up," thus, confirming their current activity within project areas. If you received this message, you were one of those editors. The List of Participants has now been updated to reflect the results of this membership survey, with members who failed to respond highlighted as "inactive." Now, as a group of editors, we have a core list of individuals, that will hopefully grow in size as the project strives to become a better organized central collaboration space for editors working on Illinois related topics.
The big question, where does the project go from here? Well there are a few proposals being floated at this project page. Little discussion has occurred thus far, and participation would be key to all of them. Some ideas include:
|
|
IvoShandor 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed content from Merck & Co. that specifically referred to Merck KGaA which is a completely different company. I made that clear in my edit summary. Why did you restore this content that doesn't belong in that article? Also, the IP that you left a conflict of interest warning message for belongs to Johnson & Johnson, which is also a different company than Merck & Co.. How can there be a conflict of interest? Please undo your incorrect revert at Merck & Co. and remove your mistaken warning message from User talk:148.177.1.211. Thank you. 148.177.1.211 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was afraid someone would get to it before me :). That's a nice image you found of him, thanks for adding that. Although it looks like the image was uploaded on top of one for a different Michael Murphy (check out the image history). jwillbur 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
ya wanna give me a reason why you reverted my comments on earring discussion? Д narchistPig 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2.i checked the user name rules thing and dont any cause for offence nor any cause for it being any of your goddamned business. Д narchistPig 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
At the discussion page of Charles Manson, I've just left a note headed "Vandalism." I'm bringing it to the attention of you and one or two other editors who have countered vandalism of the article. JohnBonaccorsi 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you take a look at my userpage for the dispute in question? It has all arisen from the pettifoggery of an unnamed user, which resulted in a pointless AnI. I believee you posted in that thread. Viridae has reverted back to changes he made to my userpage, and then protected it to keep me from putting his deletion back in. I explained my reasoning on his userpage, but then he reverted and protected regardless. K. Scott Bailey 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I read the whole ANI thread. It seems that one editor thinks bailey should be nicer to vandals, and everyone else thinks bailey is doing a fine job. I agree with everyone else. Now, without reading bailey's user page (which I haven't), I can say that a user's talk page should be left to that user. Feel free to leave messages, but don't feel free to force those messages to remain. And it isn't appropriate to protect a talk page unless the user has already been blocked from editing. It's disruptive. Rklawton 11:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we de-escalate the edit war, please. I am genuinely puzzled because I believe I have acted in good faith. From my perspective: - my text is fully supported by the references and is encylopedic - nonetheless, my version has been repeatedly deleted with unspecified reasons and with no discussion on the talk page - a much older and less complete version has been substituted - I have now been warned that I am engaged in an edit war and bad things may happen soon!
Let's leave aside recriminations and past history, and move forward from here, assuming good faith . A useful way to proceed might be: -maintaining the current text for the moment on the article page -on the discussion page, working with the current text by deleting or modifying any text that falls short of Wikipedia standards and arriving at a consensus
Thanks Qwertman 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate your thoughts on the article I just created on Tom Dula, the real man behind the popular folk song "Tom Dooley." It's not long (only a bit over 5000 characters, I think), so it shouldn't take too long. I know you're busy, so if you can't get to it, I understand. Talk to you later! K. Scott Bailey 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Croydon facelift.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Croydon facelift.JPG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Revolus 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to make my "Pages I watch" list on my userpage into a collapsible secion. Do you know how I do that? I've looked and experimented, and can not seem to figure it out. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the IPs that vandalised your page on Commons just turned up on en books ( with this) and is blocked by you here. I'm inclined to think this is not a school given this? Any thoughts & no urgency at all, cheers -- Herby talk thyme 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Robert, wondering, could I get a little help on the article above, User:Nyttend is up at the edge of 3RR changing units to list metric first in a U.S. article, flatly in the face of WP:UNITS. Perhaps you could help explain this to this user. IvoShandor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can an article about an album (i.e., Make me rich) be tagged db-band? It does not quite seem to fit, but it's the closest I can find. This article is rubbish. Thanks for your time. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You caught it a little before me--I've commented at AN/I and am speaking to the appropriate PR people there tomorrrow--I've done this before, with advice and instruction from Durova, using her WP:BFAQ. DGG ( talk) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A brief summary:
This user came to my attention when I was doing some RfA reviews and votes. He was blanketing every RfA with an oppose vote and some version of a "we don't need a professional police force" commentary. At first, this simply struck me as misguided, and a bit disrespectful (per WP:AGF), especially coming from an administrator. Upon reviewing his contribs further, I realized that this was a more blatant violation of both WP:AGF and WP:POINT, as he was simply taking out his frustrations about a 48hr block he received from another admin for edit warring on the RfA candidates up for consideration. I approached this editor, both in the main RfA space, as well as on his talk page. Several other editors did so as well. He has continued his policy violations by WP:NPA|attacking]] us as "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." He has also deleted multiple good-faith contribs from his talk page, simply because he didn't like what we had to say. While I know that at least THAT part is within his rights, I don't know if I've ever seen an admin demonstrate less good will and good faith in my previous months on the project. I have included what I feel are the most pertinent links. What I'd like to see is an "outside review" of sorts, of how this admin has conducted himself, both in the initial RfA canvassed opposes, and the subsequent discussions. Thanks in advance for any time you can put into this. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(The above are various diffs that demonstrate his extreme incivility in both posted content and edit summaries.)
[31] (This is the 48hr block that apparently started his inappropriate RfA campaign against an admin "professional police force.")
[32] (I placed a discussion he deleted from his talk page here for preservation.)
[33] (His accusations of bullying are all the way at the bottom of this page.)
Hey guy, I saw that you helped out originally with List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois. I just wanted to let you know that I have converted it into a table, and Ivo and myself are going to start working on it towards FL. So any assistance with the page or the other articles would be great. Or heck, just even morale support would be great!-- Kranar drogin 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my one place would have to be the Illinois Executive Mansion. I am going to make a quick map for you, well, trying to anyways. I saw someone do this, so give me a few here.-- Kranar drogin 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guy, did you have any luck on your adventures in Springfield?-- Kranar drogin 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI (since you're a significant contributor to the article), I've asked members of WikiProject Law to comment following [34]. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey
I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.
thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Both the talk page and the article are being monopolized by pettifoggery from User:Gwen_Gale. She is opposing uncontroversial portions of the article based on minutae, and refusing to recognize any sources provided as reliable. I've disengaged from her now. I'd appreciate another set of eyes on the article, and this potentially problematic user. (As background info, you should know that she has claimed she could reliably source that Lincoln was "genocidal", so she's got some "different" ideas on Lincoln.) K. Scott Bailey 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Need your help
If you think it's appropriate, please block
this user. Thank you.
Oda Mari (
talk)
18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if you think it might be useful to put a range block on the IPs used by the person who keeps vandalizing the Merck article. Do you think the collateral damage on blocking 201.141.128/17 would be minimal? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! It's me again. I've been sighing since then. I'm not in hurry. so I ask you the block again. To tell the truth, it's easier. I'm not sure if I could post the report appropriately. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am reposting this from the note I left at Tim Vickers talk page, as I just noticed he won't be around until Wednesday.
I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by User:Gwen_Gale. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind talking to User:Gwen_Gale about both her accusations against good faith in calling my removal of external links at Abraham Lincoln per WP:EL "edit warring", as well as her continual insistence on reinserting them after several editors have removed them based on the same reasoning. I've asked her to stop accusing me of "edit warring" in her summaries, but she refuses to do so. I will remove them one last time, but I need someone other than myself to contact her regarding both her accusations and her reinsertion of what basically amounts to a link farm. K. Scott Bailey 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So far I agree with your takes on each one you've looked at, thanks for doing this. Gwen Gale 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president; The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely, Vanais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanais ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See User:EvanS/Photos, who uploaded the image. Its caption is Birding in Indian River County. Located in the Indian River off the northwest coast of Orchid Island is the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. While access is limited, birders do watch from nearby either on the water or on Orchid Island. EvanS put the image in the Town of Orchid article and I put it in the Orchid Island article when I created. it clariosophic ( talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)corrected typo clariosophic ( talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your question on the talk page, hope it is of use to you. Mjroots ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking after my page during my absence Boatman666 ( talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would have expected more from an admin. How you could possibly call that link a personal website or a blog is beyond me. With all due respect, I think you should retract your assertion. Either way, I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Rklawton, I think you may have confused incidents when changing this sentence: "This, and other reports of members of the US military's Criminal Investigation Command working with, or posing as, members of Canadian law enforcement has raised questions about Canadian sovereignty" The reference supporting the statement [35] is not about the incident in BC, and I think it supports correctly the assertion made. Pete.Hurd 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, I appreciate you showing me the Wiki policy on external links, but wouldn't you agree that some some sites (such as gruntsmilitary.com) offer high-quality image scans of these medals which people might actually be searching for? And, if they are searching for nicer images, they honestly won't find much on Wiki's current collection. Plus, I can't exactly grab the images from gruntsmilitary.com because most aren't in the public domain (and thus we can't paste them onto their wiki pages). Don't you think that this adds content and is worthy of an external link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militarybuff ( talk • contribs)
Civility is great. I'm glad you added the war correspondent, but a month of making the request is an awful long time for something that is properly and obviously sourced. Matt Sanchez 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not giving you heat. I'm actually pointing out that it's great you were able to effectuate a change that was dragging along.
I need for people to point out what the "personal attacks" are, because there's obviously a communications' issue.
I've revised the Adult Entertainment category. How do I get editors to vote on this proposal? What is the usual process for making this change?
The revision is on the site, how do I proceed? Matt Sanchez 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we could re-write:
I got the links to the article and rewrote several parts. Much better re-write. Please comment and see if we can get editors to approve it.
In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.
During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild[24], Jawbreaker[25] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [26]
Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."
Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?
Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you sent me that message I didn't readd any corporate logo it was already there,I just moved it. Anyway its not a coporate logo its a free non-profit organization and its supposed to be an article about the square so shouldn't we have their logo on the page? Lastly other pages have logos for their organization,and or landmark why should fountain square be any different? As I said before I'm confused. Meckstroth.jm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meckstroth.jm ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So, we could re-write:
In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors
John Rutherford and
Kristen Bjorn and
Chi Chi Larue at the studios
Bijou,
Catalina and
Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under
Rod Majors.
During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild
[1], Jawbreaker
[2] and Idol Country co-starring
Ryan Idol and
Marco Rossi.
[3]
Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."
Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?
Do you mean the Lindley info should just be not included? I have no view, except that Lindley is certainly not notable enough for his own article independently of Lincoln, his article was all about Lincoln. But we could just make Lindley a redirect, though thhen maybe he should get a one-sentence mention in the rare event people come from there. Merkinsmum 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that you responded on Talk:Thomas T Walker about his notability as a Silver Star recipient. From time to time, there have been afd discussion on military personnel based on either rank/honors (BGen/NC). Some arguments centered on how many people there would be that would meet the criteria — I don't think numbers mean anything. At this point, I'm not inclined to support blanket notability on the basis of a Silver Star award. See Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. Checking just the "A"s — all have notability apart from the Silver Star. In the case of Bruce Godfrey Brackett, his additioanal notability comes from having a USN ship named in his honor. In the case of Thomas T Walker, there are a number of issues, in addition to notability of a Silver Star recipient — WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT. I'm interested in your further thoughts. — ERcheck ( talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit is unacceptable. I have been neither incivil nor disruptive and have not even edited the article lately. Moreover, the only reason I showed up again is that other editors had expressed, both on my talk page and on the article talk page, concerns about the lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln. Under the circumstances, if you wanted me to leave the discussion you could have sent me a polite email asking me to step back for awhile and I would have done, happily. I had already agreed on the talk page that waiting 90 days or so was a helpful notion and was only replying to straggling comments. To put it in a friendly way and very much assuming your good faith, let's pretend you handled it like you should have and I will step back. Meanwhile, since you're an admin and seem to have gotten a bit lost, I humbly suggest you take a moment to review, if you like, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NPOV and notably, WP:V. Either way, if you have any lingering concerns, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through my email link. You do have my best wishes. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Orange Mike, Lew Rockwell is not a neo-Confederate apologist (wou might want to do some reading up). Are we done now? Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
She is showing no willingness to even consider that she's been much less than helpful at Abraham Lincoln. At what point do we take the evidence up a level? Mr Which ??? 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe everyone involved has edited in good faith. Gwen Gale ( talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the article Corcoran and you said you removed unsourced material which is NOW sourced.You also stated I was an often blocked user,may I enquire as to where you got that impression?This is extremely irritating of you to suggest so as my intentions are not well meaning,how dare you.~~
Ok very well.At least you intentions on the edit were meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cú Culainn ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck ( talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
it's me again is any hope for Kremlin armours photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.131 ( talk) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see comments by Songflower in Perro de Presa Canario discussion.
Frangible ( talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
Frangible ( talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I tagged it as nonsense/hoax because I couldn't find one mention of the person on google. The article mentions their supposed fame, and backs it up with refs from journals supposedly by and about this person. I could find no mention of the ref documents either. So article about someone who I can't find any proof of, backed up by documents I can't find any existence of looked like a hoax to me. I have no *explicit* proof of hoax, just that it matched a pattern for creation of hoaxes I have seen from other editors before. Improbcat ( talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here on Wikipedia. I didn't think that could really happen. This is just a website! I thought. But no. I was wrong. I want to say thank you for your patience and counsel with me. Some folks have been a bit abrupt, and between figuring out how to make words blue, not to mention getting the reference codes right, not to mention understand what references are not considered appropriate, I've been barely able to breathe! Everybody thinks I'm a vandal, and I'm not, I'm just doing everything wrong.
Anyways, thanks for your patience and counsel regarding the journals. We found an amazing collection that belonged to my grandfather and his brother -- apparently this was their hobby. Some incredible stuff - I just can't believe it! I'm having so much fun reading them and learning so much that I guess I got overexcited. I'm reluctant to take them into a university (safety issues), but maybe that'd be best. This information is truly amazing.
So I guess I'll just give up Wikipedia and leave it to the experts. I just wanted to include some of this stuff I'm learning, but maybe this isn't the right place for it. I'd heard that Wikipedia was supposed to be the collected intelligence of everyone in the world, and I felt I had something to contribute. I guess I was wrong.
Your friend, Clay ( talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
is called "Appendix L Interim Report on WTC". Quantumentanglement ( talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Burr-Hamilton duel. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you significantly edited the article (as determined by WikiDashBoard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't deal with the guy anymore. Raul even suggests blocking him. Perhaps we could contact Raul (or some other uninvolved admin) about placing a short block on this account to prevent his disruption. Then, if he continues, the block could be extended. Your thoughts? Mr Which ??? 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your malicious edit. "The Independent" and RAI are not fringe sources - they have rather more reliability and credibility than, for example, the New York Times. - Sarah777 ( talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you have blocked this user. Rklawton, I am by no means a sympathizer with left-wing POV pushers, but this was a horrendous personal block, and you should know that. Admins don't block people they're in an edit war with. I ask you to remove this block right now, and bring it to the appropriate venue and ask another, uninvolved admin to do the block for you. Because I guarantee it will be overturned if you don't do so yourself right now. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for edit warring on list of massacres. These are the edits concerned: [37], [38], [39], [40]. The reverting only stopped here after you blocked the user you were edit warring with, which leads me to believe that there's a strong chance you would start edit warring again with anyone else who made substantially similar edits. -- bainer ( talk) 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Prior to this block
1) I had already apologized in the ANI thread above
2) another editor reverted my edits in the article in question - and I didn't revert back though I continued participating in various talk pages and the ANI thread noted above, all of which rather disproves the notion that I would have continued edit warring
3) none of the admins participating on the ANI thread recommend I be blocked from editing
4) The blocking admin took unilateral action even though several admins were involved in this matter on the ANI page - which isn't very respectful of the ANI process or the other admins involved.}}
I think you are doing a fantastic job for all of us on Wikipedia, keep up the good work. Seth J. Frantzman ( talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you played a significant role in the formation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. While I think I know why, I was wondering why you are no longer active in the project. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your opposition. I post this anonymously since I am one of several former editors who have been the victims of Gwen/Wyss' ruthless tactics when she is confronted with people she can't control, some of whom are quite knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. These tactics include such relatively innocuous, but anti-Wiki policy, behaviors like name-calling (amply documented if you take time to read Wyss' talk page or Google her), but, more insidiously, getting Editors with whom she's in conflict (which is most of the time) blocked for various reasons due to her longstanding relationships with other Administrators. While she used to complain about others "gaming the system," it was Wyss/Gwen herself who was non pareil in the gaming category. In fact there is a small coterie of "Wyss Survivors", as we term ourselves, who banded together via private email over the past 2 years or so, and you will notice that it was only in the past two weeks when two of us posted acrostics to Gwen's talk page "outing" her as Wyss that she finally admitted she was Wyss, something she had denied for close to a year. This was obviously done to circumvent any negative votes in the RfA. However, more importantly, her assertion that her only sockpuppet was "The Witch" is patently false. She has a long history of creating socks which she uses to defame other Users/Editors with whom she is having conflicts. Though it's obvious that she will be approved as an Administrator, I hope that you at least will keep an eye on her behavior. I will say that she seems to have become a bit more relaxed in her guise as Gwen than she ever was as Wyss, but her troubling behaviors do continue to this day, as you have noted. I'm curious why no one has mentioned her anti-Wikipedia screed which ran on Wyss' talk page for months after she "permanently resigned" from Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. 24.22.24.202 ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | ||
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable and very serious concerns about POV pushing, problematic edits and judgement when there is strong disagreement. I will take heed and very carefully address them. I welcome your comments anytime. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Our friend Thomas Paine 1776 is back at Henry Ford, yet again trying to whitewash For'ds aanti-semitic history. I could use your help again with this. Thanks ThuranX ( talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
RK has made no comment since 22 December. Anyone out there know if he is OK? Sarah777 ( talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am relieved too!, even though he is completely wrong about the Lincoln death photo I put in, I am glad RKlawton is okay!
High regards, ([[User talk::cathytreks|talk]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.41.9 ( talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
oh no, it was me mr. bot, it is eye....cathytreks.... the Lincoln death photo photo girl friend of RKlawton.
The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar | ||
For being apart of WikiProject Freemasonry! InvisibleDiplomat666 05:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello again. If you could do the honours?
Littlegirlearspierced (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log)
Cheers! -
Gobeirne (
talk)
08:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Robert, glad to see you're back and I just wanted to drop a note to tell you that. R. Baley ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a university student who had the assignment of creating and keeping up a wikipedia article this semester and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my article and give me some comments. The article is Waukee United Methodist Church
Thanks, Kbeichle ( talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
i'm sorry i didn't know Myheartinchile ( talk) 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could please help me out. I don't really have any experience with conflict resolution in Wikipedia, and don't know what steps to take. I am worried about the contributions from User:Slyder_Pilot, in particular, his repeated additions to the Saint Joseph's University, University of Minnesota Duluth, and Thumb wrestling pages, despite his changes being undone by numerous users, numerous times. I noticed in his talk page that you had previously dealt with him with the Thumb wrestling page, and so I thought maybe you could help guide me in the right direction - to determine what policies in particular he is violating, and what steps to take to encourage him to stop. Any advice you have or actions you could take would be very much appreciated - Shadowsill ( talk) 03:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Look at that!
Somebody said it's notable! --
Slyder Pilot
15:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason i came out against you i that you really should leran some manners. Being an administrator doesn't give you the right to call someones edits "crap" and calling a web site "six years old nose picking...".
If you want to continue being an administrator, you should be polite all the way, and that doesn't metter what the other user does. That's part of what being an admnistrator is.
As for the user. Did you see his contribution list? He contributes, and in a nice way. Instead of reverting him, leave the information for a certain period, lets say a week, and give him the chance to provide you links to prove this organisation is notable.
Besides, he just entered in the article that another organisation has different rules, he didnt create an article about it and it's size is a completely different discussion. Log in, log out ( talk) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Rkwalton. [45], [46]. Dont get me wrong but as far as i know the Sun is not a hoax, it's a serious. A big newspaper read all over canada, the Canadian New York Times, that seems that the hoax ocusation falls of. I dont know about the size of that federation and if it deserves a seperate article or not, but it deserves the line Slyder Pilot wanted to add in the general article about the sport. Please give arguments why a real organisation which gets a media coverege cant get a line not about it even but about the fact that there are organisations which use different phrases. I yet return it, in order to talk about it before we do something. Log in, log out ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. It seems that someone you had blocked has returned, abusive again, under a new name. The current username is Log in, log out ( talk); his recent abusive post is [47]. His blocked identity is M.V.E.i.. Look at the similarities in writing styles and biographies: [48] [49] - similar writing styles, both invovle music, both involve National Bolshevism. I'm not technologically savvy but I suspect they can be traced to the same address. Faustian ( talk) 19:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Send a request up to check-user. They may be of some help. If I did the block myself, it might appear as a conflict of interest. Rklawton ( talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've reopened the can of worms that is the 55 vs 44 gallon drum argument which you were involved in a while ago. Since you were involved before the argument fizzled out without a conclusion, I thought you might like to include your input again. Thanks, Phasmatisnox ( talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde Thanks for you attention.
Guyonthesubway ( talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This user is attacking me all over wikipedia
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guyonthesubway
Gdewilde ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I noted on the talk page for CrossFit that you were mediating editing discussions and helping to move the article into a NPOV page. I ran across the article when I saw today's MCT article on a lawsuit. I wanted to see there was a Wikipedia article and found an article that read a bit like advertising, with a criticism section thrown in.
I feel that I am a pretty neutral editor here, as I'd never heard of CrossFit and could only derive my information from available reliable sources, etc. I've done a bit of editing; but still feel that the {{ advert}} tagged section could still use a bit of work. I did strip out a number of citations to discussion boards and multiple links to the CrossFit website, as well as commercial sites.
Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. — ERcheck ( talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. In the past you had expressed concern that the Texas Tech article was not up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that it has underwent considerable changes and is one of Wikipedia's newest featured articles. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a leading editor of Ernest Hemingway, you may be interested in the individual WP:GAR discussion at Talk:Ernest Hemingway/GA1. Please consider helping to improve the article to retain its WP:GA rating.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, linking dates is now deprecated per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting. This is a recent change, and it seems to have been advertised poorly. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I read an article by a cathetricks and they said newly discovered photos and a hoop skirt found in the white house, from the 1860's, prove that Abraham Lincoln was in fact a woman! omg!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.75.181 ( talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Rmattai, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rmattai and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rmattai during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. haz ( talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) haz ( talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rklawton, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dropping by talk:Lurita Doan. We're having a pretty lively discussion at the moment and a rather large rewrite has been proposed for the "controversies" section. Thanks. Kind Regards -- Happysomeone ( talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Robert, I dug out my Ernest Hemingway books and left a post at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Restoration about some ideas for how to work on the article. You'd expressed interest at the recent Good Article Review... If you're still interested and have access to some good books, or just have some good ideas, or whatever else, please share whatever you've got! Should be fun too. Cheers, -- JayHenry ( talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a possibility that User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not may be a sockpuppet of a user you have previously had experience with. Comparing the contributions of User:M.V.E.i., User:No Free Nickname Left, and User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not, I noticed similar arguments about inclusion of ethnicity in biographical articles, particularly as they relate to Russian or related biographies, including accusations of vandalism when items were removed. I made edits to information on Igor Sikorsky which resulted in reversion and charges of vandalism which were edited to then be a discussion about my edits. Since No Free Nickname established the "sources" that I removed, it raised the question of why User:I'm... was so vehement about their inclusion. From the discussion, I observed grammar syntax similarities between the two users, which raised suspicion in my mind, especially when I saw from User:No Free Nickname Left's user page that he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Other similarities exist in my mind, but I feel someone else should take a look at it. -- Born2flie ( talk) 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Gwen Gale. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD ( talk) 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
11/28/2008
We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring it into conformance. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give is forever appreciated.
The current list of references was chosen as follows:
1) Wagner, D.R., to show the history of After Hours Poetry 2) Access San Francisco, to show that After Hours Poetry is and has been in the public arena. 3) Six Foot Swells, to show that other publishers have and continue to work in the genre of After Hours Poetry.
Yes one of our authors was used as a reference here. It needs to be noted that one of our editors mistakenly used his personal information to open an account here. The error has been corrected.
Please review recent changes in the article, as we believe we have met the spirit of Wikipedia’s needs.
We respectfully ask you to please remove this article from you delete list.
We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com .
Thank you, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow Publications Editor395 ( talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Addition Author Comment: In reference to the news article you mentioned. The article was not included as a reference to After Hours Poetry. However, it does demonstrate that the genre has been recognized in the media for a long time. Also, it should be noted that there are well over one hundred such articles posted on the internet, all in reference to After Hours Poetry and the writers who work in the genre. We have intentionally stayed away from using these article for references, as we feel they do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria. After Hours Poetry is a relatively young genre of poetry that continues grow at a rapid pace. We feel comfortable that in a short time frame others will be enhancing the article, adding additional references and strengthening its content. We trust the Wikipedia editors will allow the After Hours Poetry article to continue to be part of the Wikipedia world. Again, thank you.
We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com. 24.10.8.50 ( talk) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
From the history of said article, I see you've added some award recipients. Can you please add valid references for your edits as per WP:CITE? Thank you. (talk) raghuvansh (contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
After delving further into the complex structure of wikipedia’s objectives and guidelines, I am beginning to come to a better comprehension. As I now understand, when an article gets an AfD tag, it is subjected to discussion with the aim of either salvaging the article or sending it to the deletion chamber. It has further become apparent to me that the Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award article was deleted without giving it an opportunity to invite debate.
This article has been in Wikipedia for several years (I do not have access to the history to establish date of entry), and it went through the scrutiny of other administrators and was allowed to remain on the basis that it passed the notability test.
Below are additional links that will shed further light on the award’s notability: As you will note, none of the links originate or point to my website. The award consists of a citation, medal and a check. The cash value of the 2007 award was approx. $2,500.
Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/341775025.cms
GoanVoice http://www.goanvoice.ca/2004/issue20/
http://www.goacom.com/PFAgoa/award.htm
http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2008/sep/19sep08.htm -- Dommartin99 ( talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
" Oh RkLawton, you just know everything and are my hero (sandwich)! cathytreks ( talk) 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "
Dear Mr Lawton my apology's to you regarding whoever who was using my account. My name will not be used or be seen here or be a bother. I changed both my name and password. -- cathitreks ( talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Why the extension of DenisHume ( talk · contribs) from one week to indefinite? Did something happen in the nearly 5 hours that he was blocked for 7 days to warrant an extension? Full disclosure: I petitioned Protonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to shorten the block, he gave an adequate reason for why my petition should be declined. But indefinite? That implies something new happened after Protonk's block or Protonk missed some very important information when limiting the block to 1 week. So, why the indefinite block? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
True. Note that this case involves more than a couple angry statements. Every post indicates the intent to violate SOAP and/or inflict incivility upon dedicated contributors. Rklawton ( talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a long precedent for indef blocking accounts that are 100% problematic, and it's clear we have such a case now, and this case is much more serious than a trivial vandalism spree. Rklawton ( talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Rklawton--
If I may be so bold, I would like to state that I respectfully disagree with your position. It is my belief that there is a fair-to-middling chance that
User:DenisHume will become a productive editor. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt now that he has strongly implied that he has calmed down.
--NBahn (
talk)
20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Rklawton, I adjusted the block to allow Denis to edit his talk page. The length remains unchanged. If you aren't happy with this, please feel free to change it back. As for your original extension of the block, I have no comment(: what I meant to say was that I refuse to outright criticize it or wholeheartedly endorse it. I pretty plainly had a comment. :) ). When I originally reached for the block button my first inclination was "indefinite", but I decided against that. I feel that an indefinite block for the user is within your discretion but I also can understand arguments that the user could come around and edit productively (though this seems exceedingly unlikely). As for the general complaints above about blocking users for having 'unacceptable views', I'm not at all convinced. Denis wasn't blocked for having unacceptable views about content or policy. He was blocked for disruption and hostility. One can hold the view that Virgin Killer's album cover represents child abuse without accusing wikipedia editors of the same. It is not suppression of speech to demand that. Protonk ( talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
I give this jointly to User:Protonk and User:Rklawton for quickly finding a way to head off rising dissension surrounding the block of User:DenisHume and to allow him to communicate with the community and, if he chooses to do so, eventually to show that he can become a valued Wikipedia editor. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means there's a resolution everyone can accept. I think we have consensus. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [50] Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”
I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!
In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article. Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Referring to your post above to me, Patricia Maier, you asked what my relationship is to Dom Martin.
I met Dom Martin many years ago in 1980 after viewing his artistic contribution of more than 60 paintings at the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument. I am a person who was most impressed by the volume, scope and style of his artwork. As his artworks have remained on continuous exhibition in the Basilica Art Gallery since the 1970’s, and my close relationship with the artist has continued to the present time, I am also a person who felt inspired to write an article about Dom Martin. It seemed apparent to me that this was a significant enough exhibition, on a grand enough scale, for a lengthy period of time, in a globally significant monument visited by millions of people, to meet the Wikipedia guidelines under “Additional Criteria” for notability.
Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]
And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”
Again, as the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.
It is not uncommon for the author of a biographical article about a living person to confer with the subject. In fact, given the problems that Wikipedia has experienced with people objecting to what people have written about them, it would seem very appropriate to go to the source to verify data. I worked on the article over a period of several weeks, at one point using Dom Martin’s computer to work on the article – perhaps this accounts for your thinking that he initiated the article, as I may have accessed Wikipedia after he had logged in using his user ID. However, I’m quite confused by your saying that the article was deleted and then recreated, as my recollection was that I initially input a rough draft on the Wikipedia edit box to work on reference links, but I thought it was only after I uploaded the final draft of the article that it was then tagged by JNW and then deleted by you. In any event, I hope the above information clears things up a bit for you.
As to your mention of verifiable notabiltiy, below are references, which span more than a quarter of a century of time, and substantiate the permanent display of the artworks of Dom Martin at the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India:
http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more
http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm
The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states: “Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”
The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.]
The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”
Please reconsider your previous position and at least give my article a fair chance for deletion review by other editors and administrators. Perhaps there may be some suggestions for modification or additional verification of the article to make it acceptable. -- Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Done a little more research and found that there was indeed a prior Dom Martin article that was deleted on November 24, 2006 for “copyvio”. If you recall, I wrote to you that I was confused about your reference to a Dom Martin article being deleted two days prior to mine, which was submitted on November 26, 2008. You had written me on your Talk page that: “Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted his article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin initiated the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article . . .”. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the coincidence of the November dates, two days apart (albeit, also two years apart) was what prompted you to assume that I was not the author of the article but rather that Dom Martin had defiantly “recreated the very same article” two days after the first one had been deleted. It is distressing for me to see that not only has my own article about Dom Martin been deleted (and I am not presently attempting to resurrect the article), but also that I am still not even given credit for having written the article, since, on the deletion page, is your notation: “. . . self-created vanity article with no independent supporting sources.” In light of the fact that my article was created more than two years after a presumably self-created article was submitted and deleted for “copyvio”, it would seem appropriate you would edit your notation on the deletion page log to omit this reference to “self-created vanity article”. Also, I did certainly submit “independent supporting sources”, i.e.: ( http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more).-- Patriciamaier2 ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was looking through the history of an editor because of an issue over inserting a questionable external link to the Anne Frank article when I came across an old Abraham Lincoln death photo issue. I read through parts of it, but to be honest, not all of it, so it may have had a different outcome than how it was proceeding. In any event, I have a point about all of this. The discussion of the image claimed that it was taken at the White House during the time he was being embalmed and prepared for laying in state. I recently read a book which, at one point, discusses the autopsy proceedings for Lincoln and from that, I can't see how that image could be an authentic photo of Lincoln. The autopsy was extensively documented and I'm not thinking that mortician skills were such at that time that signs from extensive autopsy examination of Lincoln's head could be so well hidden (not to mention the magical beard) that a photo would not betray it. Quite an interesting exchange over this issue. Have a nice new year. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
just noticed that the Oxyhydrogen article references US patent 4936961 of Stanley Meyer, and also lists one image from that patent. Given the fraudulent nature of Stanley Meyer's claims (i.e. perpetual motion) these ought to be removed I think. I didn't want to edit the page myself given that I don't have an account and don't understand much of wikipedia policies.
cheers,
David 130.149.19.1 ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, just realized that the short 'Automotive' section of Oxyhydrogen already does some criticism. But since the image File:Water_fuel_cell_capacitor.png still isn't referenced in that section, it looks like a leftover from earlier edits. If kept, at least the name Stanley Meyer should be linked for clarity. David 130.149.19.1 ( talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, hope I replied to your message right haha. Yeah, I might need some help. I'm from Mt. Vernon and I kinda know some of the guys in the band. I've sent an email to Mt. Vernons local newspaper to see if they can do an online article on the band, but that might take a while to get up. XM638 ( talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes one believe it is right and proper to just take down a photo of myself and my brother? and just what is it that you are implying?, As I recall it was taken on the steps of a townhouse building in New York City in December of 1969, when I was 12 years old, by my then living uncle, and was not taken from any television programme and while it has been used elsewhere with my permmisions, by myself on several varied websites and other media regarding my early work as a child actress RKlawton. Really should it be up to me to prove MY property is MY property?, in fact under the WIKI RULE'S that you know is true, you know well you are allowed to challenge and attempt to prove me otherwise, Please do so without gile threats towards me or my account?,as I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am in my rights to question your action at the least without fear of retribution, when done properly and without malice, or am I wrong, Sir? cathie ( talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Really Sir, you do not know know me or who I really am,and I only ask for the right to appeal what you have implied?, I am not a liar or a thief and I claim the rights to me in my photograph of in spite of words to the contrary, Surely it is a just a mistake perhaps in the warning, and so you need to know the facts, may I write you at your personal address?, that should satisfy you regarding my claims as fact.
In the days ahead may I post another Photograph but not this specific photo per your specific written warning and letter of the Wiki TOS, is that alright?
The new photograph posted shall be taken from the same time period, and then you shall be able to say perhaps "Gee I was mistaken" to me, and not challenge the new one, all under the fair WIKI rules, Is this acceptable for you Sir, Mr. RKLawton?, In the meanwhile I shall abide as you say. Xie xie -- cathie ( talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The picture was put up mistakenly, sorry I picked the wrong picture, I better get out my glasses b4 I pick my photos out of my vault! my bad. -- cathie ( talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my eyes had failed in my posting of a picture some years ago, at a page I never look at, are you trying to bait me on a honest mistake?, well Sir, PLEASE assume good faith and think otherwise?, as being mean and hurtful to me is not the answer, Please I beg, this not like before when we debated about Lincoln before you became a Administrator Sir, I respect you! and so it is with respect and respectfully I am asking you to grant me leave to go as I grant you your due, and say goodnight and good day, and peace.... my old "debating" friend? -- cathie ( talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't hurt me anymore I am half blind and struggle even to type a few words, soon will be using a brallie computer as my eyesight loss is QUITE degenerative, may u at least pity me! I am very sorry for putting up the wrong picture and pray you will give me some dignity and allow me to say goodbye for now, Sir. -- cathie ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
please go to my commons talk page, it has the specific information on what to delete, which is all but two photographs. i trust sincerely we can get off to a fresh and new start RK, Please note I did as you asked, and right away.-- cathie ( talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
what you aSKED ME TO DO I WILL DO as you requested, I am currently in a state of shock and need a few hours to prepare everything before I attempt to deo everything just as you ask, I AM ONLY ASKING YOU to give me untill usa monday to do all as you require, will you not give me this small amount of time RK, PLEASE I BEG OF YOU! -- cathie ( talk) 07:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish to continue editing at the Wikipedia portion of wiki and I promise to keep civil but it is not very nice to see people ganging up on an innocent girl, and that would be me, here's why....
I cannot help it if my Uncle Malachi left me an assortment of thousands of photographs and slides and negatives and such and then I published them here and elswhere unknowingly if it was done wrongly, sorry.
Also there has been no intentional lie or fabrication regarding the provenance of the MANY materials I was bequethed in his will, they were published here in good faith with the information I had at the time, I know nothing else about it and I am not a liar Sir, and regardless of others opinions I am as innocent as a new born baby in this at the least, and feel very hurt by certain people passing judgement upon me for just trying to share some material that was passed on to me, for what is wrong with me doing that Sir?
Please, you will do as you will, but due to this situation I have no plans to publish any more at the wikimedia commons anyway unless there is a well deserved apology to me, also I have contributed several photos that were of my own collection that are scans of people, Like the Liccoln death photograph, and others and such over 100 years old and are therefore not subject to copyright laws, and also my created animated stick figure .gif,etc.
I only tried to share with the world good things I was given, or do in fact have ownership rights to...so there is no confession but the simple truth I have just given to Mr. Lupo and to you most especially Sir, Mr. Lawton.
My very best of regards to you, Sir. -- cathie ( talk) 19:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Please do reprimand me as is your duty but it can be done without gile and no threats towards me or my account, If there were "mistakes" on my part in the past, that is where they are, in the past RK! Honestly, Please know that I live a much more serene life now than a long time ago and desire to avoud conflicts, with anyone, most especially you, and even in the back and forth "discussions" last night I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am still in my rights to question Authority,yet with a respectful manner?
Please take your actions as you see fit RK, I too wish to empty my wikicommons page of non rights published materials, however there are some I published that are mine, or the copyright has lapsed by 100 years and should not be removed, but do not know what to do or understand how to do it to make it look right, I tried to but I am at a loss and cannot fathom the hows and wherebys of doing it.
As to my wiki editing I should not have a fear of retribution from anyone, because since I was suspended that last time, several years ago I have learned proper manners and have not done anything wrong, and what has been done was donr properly and without malice, I have shown in recent years of times I am a polite, even if I am a closely watched editor.
In conclusion please? ask whoever it is in charge at the commons to get rid of those silly uploaded images as per your order policys?, I want to see them gone too but cannot figure out how and lastly and finally only seek to do the right for the wikipeadia, and our small ball of dust in space and my 875 edits show that at least I tried to help, even if I often failed!, what I did was done to improve a page or give a proper fact about something I really know and give backing evidence from a NPOV, and if my own fantasys sometimes crept into the page, it was because I have been at times over-enthusiastic in my editing, I give you my word that non such has happened of the last couple of years at least, Nor would it ever happen again and it hasn't.
I wanted to be loved...cherished and remembered...and have it said that, "well, at least she tried to make it a better world, even in her own strange yet caring way".
So is this goodbye RK...goodbye?, and truly only the very best of wishes to you, for no matter what you think, and suprisingly as it may sound, I have really always looked up to you RK, Pray for me please that there may be a Heaven so I may go and see my family and friends, I am feeling so lonely and with little hope.-- cathie ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, RK? I would ask just one thing, but first I want you to know that I now realise that what I did was wrong, innocent mistake or not in your eyes or those of others I am now all too painfully aware of the mistake, and ask forgiveness in that I be allowed to continue to be allowed to communicate within the wiki community to show you and others that I am a valued Wikipedia editor at times and have turned in to administrators edits by those who had done them malicously and when I saw an error on a date regarding a person or an issue I put it forth and corrected it whenever I could I do help!, please do not ban me, I swear an outh to you I shall do the right things and not allow myself to be a burden on your time, and only a asset to the community, is my plea. Most sincerely to you RKLawton and the wiki's as a whole. Cathie -- cathie ( talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am quite tired of arguing about this , howabout we just sit tight? I will have the photographs up you demand and then everyone will be happy?, what I wrote last night at the commons was out of shear fatigue from being on the chopping block wrongly, I said I was sorry for my mistakes of the long past, but It is hard to take it when misundertandings, about me must be listened to, and listen to these storys which are not true in essence from my perspective Sir, without at least trying to stand up for the truth as far as I know it, and I would like to continue as an editor and am being very polite about the entire matter, I am just askiong, pleading and trying to make ammends RK, and am not questioning your authority, nor making any legal threats or anything unkind to you or anyone Sir! , I though that maybe we could better sort things out with a mediation , which is not disrepecting you as a Administrator, but I only want to do the right things on WIKI in a NPOV way with you and everyone, Again I am sorry Sir , I wont let you down this time, I know my very place here is in danger of being eliminated and I think after you see my photographs and other proofs that then when you know all the facts we can be friends! How I wish we could just talk on the phone, then you would know by my voice my sincerity in what I am saying to you here, and no disrespect is meant at all and I only want to be a good wiki, and make you all proud of me. -- cathie ( talk) 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
congratulations, i lost my cool and you won. your plan worked well it was just a matter of time before i blew my stack...sorry you could not have been a friend instead of an enemy...good luck and goodbye lawton. i wont see you again! -- kathy-treks-on ( talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Woah, not quite sure how I ended up slapping you with a personal attack template. Either Twinkle screwed up somewhere there or I did. Sorry about that! - Vianello ( talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Mea culpa, was trying to click on an IP edit to an article at my watchlist and accidentally rolled back your user talk. Oops. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
FINALLY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!!!
NOW PLEASE OFFER ME A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR KEEPING THOSE PICS????
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.248 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE EMAIL ME AT mo.sayan@gmail.com
To satisfy my curiosity, please tell me why you undid my cleaning up of this project page. You'll have noticed that I didn't delete any of the information; all I did was bring the page in line with the generally used format. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that you referred to me with "his/her". You're even more cautious than I am about gender! I once created {{ genderneutral}}, but I also often use "he/she". But I've never used it for someone who used a known gender-specific first name. Most people refer to me as "he", but you can refer to me any way you want, I'm not easily offended by such things. — Sebastian 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a legitimate question, it's trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the offer. I was wondering if you could restore a few article to my talk archive so i can see excatly what condition the article was in before they were deleted (I believe they are more than notable now). If its not too much trouble could you copy:
The most current version of List of big-bust models and performers to User talk:Valoem/deleted/List of big-bust models and performers
And if possible the best version of Allie Sin/ Naughty Nati (at your discretion) to User talk:Valoem/deleted/Allie Sin. Valoem talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Same editor pulling same nonsense at Prescott Bush. THF ( talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had somehow overlooked that I was editing your user page instead of your talk page. Normally, I do not edit other users' user pages (unless absolutely necessary). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made use of your editing statistics for comparison purposes only at User:Tyrenius/THF#Collect_and_Rklawton re. this post at AN/I. There is no suggestion whatsoever that you have any involvement in any sockpuppetry. Ty 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about scrubbing. Why did you revert that? Do you not want to know where the dreaded 'anti-semitic conspiracy theories' originated from? Because I can tell you for a fact it was Henry Ford that brought it into worldwide circulation. Are you denying that happened as well, or does it bother your collective conscience as an American? 84.28.82.149 ( talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Bye bye. Rklawton ( talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Any ANI complaint best comes from you, but I have compiled a list of diffs on the subject. The resignation is in Archive520. THF ( talk) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the fixing the Image copyright problem for me. Also, regarding the cluster bomb, that seems to be not a problem anymore. If it turns out to be one, could you please post it at WT:SLR as I'm usually not active here anymore. — Sebastian 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to burst your petty little power trip, but it isn't exactly fair game to ban someone just because he was right and you were proven wrong. When someone accuses another of being an 'anti-semite' just because the ADL has labelled him as such, I want to point out to to the Wikipedia audience that however horrible it may be, 'anti-semitism' actually originated from the United States, not Nazi-Germany, though it later adopted it from the likes of Madison Grant and Charles Davenport. Wikipedia's own article on Henry Ford states as much, yet when I bring it up in a Talk section, I get accused by the likes of you for vandalism and banned.
It is the sheer height of hypocrisy that you can go around calling people like me a 'crank' and 'conspiracy theorist', yet I get BANNED by you just because I call you a 'deceptive little creature', which you clearly have demonstrated you are. You can CALL ME all sorts of names, yet I in return am not allowed that privilege. You are deliberately colluding with THF and Collect (two other sockpuppets on Prescott Bush's page) to get rid of as much 'inconvenient' information as possible. Perhaps it's just because you're really clueless and really don't know alot - that would be at least the half-way respectable scenario, and the least weighing on your conscience.
You want your audience (who I presume you want to delude, that is, unless you really DID NOT KNOW Henry Ford published The Elders Of Zion) to remain in a paradigm - without ever knowing where anti-semitism originated from and what a joke it is to see the ones who PROMOTED the concept of 'racial purity' and 'Aryan superiority' to Hitler to remain free of persecution. You use that 'ploy', that 'slogan', 'anti-semite', 'crank', as a silencing technique. It's a deceptive con-game, especially when you never get at the heart of the matter - where the anti-semitism came from, who started the ball rolling, and hey, guess what? The source of origin is a very unlikely one, and very unfortunate and inconvenient indeed for the self-righteous Americans always eager to trot out charges of 'anti-semitism'.
Unfortunately for you, and your sources, Prescott Bush's collusion with the Nazis is a well-established fact, and is well-documented in numerous high-profile books on the subject, including Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot. What you have constructed thus far are 'strawmen' arguments and falling back on 'guilt by association'. You peddle establishment sources as the ultimate harbinger of truth, perhaps KNOWING or NOT KNOWING the complete collusion of mainstream news with the establishment. More unfortunate for you, still, is that President Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, the father of JFK and countless other Americans clearly believed in the Nordic/Aryan races' superiority and viewed the Nazis as good. Worse still is that FDR refused to take Jewish refugees from Nazi-Germany. Even worse, university professors were making statements in 1936 to the tune of 'Hitler is beating us at our own game - race hygiene and sterilization'. This is all documented in books such as Edwin Black's 'War Against The Weak' - and don't come with your silly, puny little slogan such as 'conspiracy theorist' just because you don't care and don't want to know.
Unlike you and your petty insults and one-liners, I can back up all these claims with facts and more. I can only conclude that you're a weak-minded yuppie who really does not CARE about the facts, but whether or not you can hang out with your equally deceptive Wikipedians, gain some 'street' credits and keep people in a deceitful paradigm while slandering people who want to break out of your make-believe reality. And of course, being an American, you want to uphold this concocted, grand noble myth that you're the good guys and you fought Nazism. I can only tell you haven't looked into the eugenics history of your own country, or the Royal Institute of Intl. Affairs Conference of 1938. You didn't read Edwin Black's War Against The Weak, haven't you? You haven't read Eugenics And Other Evils by Chesterton, huh?
We live in the information age, sonny. Ignorance is no veil to hide behind - and neither are petty and childish retorts like 'crank', 'anti-semite' or 'conspiracy theorists'. So lose that beard of yours and that smug grin (BTW, not to hurt your ego, but you don't look all that great), quit being so gullible, because I have a newsflash for you, if you keep sticking your head in the sand, you're gonna get hurt real bad too, bubba - by your own masters. The only thing you're doing is discrediting Wikipedia even further by engaging in clear deception.
And if it serves your power trip, go ahead, ban me again. Do what thou wilt. Do your worst, 'bubba'. Show me your power!!!! (ROFLMAO) Your Internet is gonna get shut down soon, bubba, replaced by Internet2, and given the futures market, Jimmy Wales the Wall Street hustler is not going to be there to give it another tug - so there goes your admin privileges. Just know that I don't grovel to the likes of you - I don't bow down and I do not let myself get silenced just because some deluded individual has familiarized himself with a 'slogan' that is somehow intended to put me down. OK, bubba? 84.28.82.149 ( talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Unsure of your reason to alter, and basically remove, that section from the WBC page. I didn't quite understand the reason for that section's title ("Announced Protests" seemed fitting for basic entry in "Activities and Statements" due to similarity in content), but I don't see how it can be used to arrive at the assumption that such listings were "to provide a list of announced protests" - instead, I assumed it be used to indicate those that were announced/planned and possibly had not occurred or had yet to occur. Note the wording used in those entries: "WBC threatened to"; "the church declared intent to"; "announced they would".
In other words, it seems that your objection to those entries was based on their potential of use to promote WBC, even with positivity. I'd hope that a concentrated re-reading might leave you with another opinion.
Those listings provided details on actions and statements by WBC that continually made the news, to the point of their being of current history status.
I submitted the last entry to that category, and because it was in today’s news. It also includes reference to other notable and wikied names. Regroce ( talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might want to consider adding yourself to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with that user. Cheers Kyle1278 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
First off, there's no reason to get all huffy and butthurt over it. Secondly, I was in error. I was confusing that image with the image that is frequently attributed to being Michael Murphy's MoH. You'd probably be received a lot better if you'd calm down and not resort to threats and flexing of your "muscle." 98.220.54.37 ( talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, you are being discussed here. -- Tom (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
About that, since no one else has done it yet I've come here to advise you that making personal attacks isn't allowed. You know that, so don't do it. My advice would be to apologise. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but what exactly was his personal attack? Explain please. Also suggesting that you could block him for "harrasment" because he complianed about your behaviour is clearly oversterpping the mark. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a sport. I don't play games. The IP/editor has already admitted to making each of the mistakes I've noted, so I do not think an additional warning over this matter is warranted. If you wish to provide further guidance to anyone, then consider reviewing all the various AN/I and talk page edits and consider whether the various participants created an entirely unnecessary Wiki-drama over a matter that was properly and appropriately closed. Rklawton ( talk) 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)