![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your help re: FOLMADS, Inc.. Wondering if you might weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination) if you have a moment. Thanks, Spamandeggs ( talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You know that you were mentioned in the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN). I wrote something in support of you. I wrote that I didn't like you at first but after some communication, things resolved. Therefore, others should try to work with you first before saying that you are bad. You should also look at your own behavior to make sure that you aren't doing things to make others dislike you. In the end, I think you are reasonable so if everyone, you and them, work positively, things will be ok! User F203 ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
Please Note: I have spcecifically indicated in the text of the article, that THERE ARE TWO VIEPOINTS. Regardless of the fact that I can definitely see why THE CURRENT, SINGLE, DESCTIBED VIEWPOINT, IS NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT RATHER ALSO - ABUSIVE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE WHO HOLD THE OTHER (UNMENTIONED) VIEPOINT, I specifically took the trouble to mention BOTH, whereas NOBODY ELSE HAS BOTHERED.
I request that all involved shall calm down, out of their own volition, any emotional reflexes of tantrums, and of abuse towards other people's views, provoking war related to an ARTICLE ABOUT A MOVIE (!!!), NOT ABOUT SRVIVAL OF MANKIND.
Thank you.
-- Shimon Yanowitz ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say you shot your arguement in the fooot with the verbage, "the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie" without a backup to say this is true then this is unreliable and original research. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
For future ref, to file a 3RR you need the first version reverted to, then 2 reverts, a 3RR warning, an attempt to discuss the revert on the talkpage, the third revert (4th edit) then the fourth revert. The fourth revert (fifth edit) is the point at which a report is filed, and you have to avoid making more than three edits yourself. Shimon Yanowitz never got to the fifth edit, so could not have a 3RR report filed, however his edits were disruptive anyway. Darrenhusted ( talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks go out to
Darrenhusted for his good-will and civil peace-making efforts on this.
-- Shimon Yanowitz ( talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You reverted before I could reply on the talk page, but what sources contradict aMoL being a trilogy/series/whatever title? Every source I found says it will be, including Tor's press release, and multiple comments by Sanderson. Rehevkor ✉ 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea; maybe we can find a template at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace to put on Talk:Star Trek (film) not to talk about such topics so generally? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have got 3rd party confirmation on my Book, 3awww by a user of wikipedia. Butchre ( talk) 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly thats stupid. somebody edited my page confirming they have read it. so un-nominate it Butchre ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
whats sock-puppetry? Big joc ( talk) 14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
to be honest, i dont know how to supply you with a reliable source as this is only a small budget book in rural ireland Butchre ( talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me how you think this mall isn't notable. The first version of the article, deleted via the first AFD, had no sources at all. There was also a second, unsourced version which was deleted by PROD (yeah, shouldn't have happened). This version has plenty of sources. Oh yeah, and the last AFD was over 2 years ago. AFDs that old don't usually hold up in G4-ish discussions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Bucket, I've speedily kept both AFDs. You really should familiarize yourself more with WP:N as well as the deletion policy, and you shouldn't use Twinkle--especially for speedy deletions or AFDs--until you do. The next deletion nomination of any sort that is deemed to be pointy may result in you being blocked. Blueboy 96 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) No, sorry, we can't "agree to disagree". Neither you nor I have any overwhelming sway on the community's criteria. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't simply get to act all willy-nilly on this site without any regard for the entire community's will. If an article meets those criteria, especially overwhelmingly, your continued nominations of such articles based on your own opinion and nothing else is disruptive. I strongly recommend that you refrain from participating in AfD nominations and other deletion procedures unless and until you accept the community's criteria over your own. 15:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have somewhat defended your actions on the AN thread, but I will offer you same advice here as I did in that thread: it might be in your own best interests to concentrate on areas outside of deletion until he gets a better handle on our policies (or are willing to accept them for what they are if you are, in fact, ignoring them in favor of what you believe to be best as others have asserted). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell, AfD can be a pretty unpleasant place sometimes. In fact, so can other areas of Wikipedia when there is passion or emotional attachment. The editors who last here and enjoy their working tend to be able to let stuff go and to realize early on that many goo dfaith efforts will fail. Right and wrong don't always matter here. You will win some battles you lose others. Sometimes the pendulum of views here swings one way, sometimes another.
Particularly on the side of deleting other people's work you can expect to receive criticism, and I think some of the criticism should be taken seriously and considered carefully. What is notable to one person may not be notable to another. I think our policies generally favor inclusion and preservation when in doubt, because we are paperless and serve a wide variety of people with diverse interests. That's not to say that there isn't an awful lot of that can be appropriately deleted, but there's also a lot of stuff that just needs trimming, merging, tweaking or redirecting.
I'm just offering my two cents. Have fun. And please add content and help build the encyclopedia wherever possible. :) I know clean-up counts too, but it's fun and rewarding sometimes to plant flowers instead of always trying to pull up the weeds (which sometimes flower too). Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I was rather clear as to my own personal expectations from the average user, that one would read things carefully, but perhaps my response fits under the category of "tl;dr". That makes this exercise difficult, don't you think? If I offer my concise thoughts and you don't really read it all? This is at least how it appears to me because of my expectation of your intelligence; even in more strenuous editing in the past I could tell that you were an intelligent person, so why some things slip your grasp is something I can't comprehend. So I am trying to be patient and not bite.
Let's take Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall. Your argument for deletion was basically "Who cares?", because, when asked to clarify based on Wikipedia's general notability criteria, you didn't seem to have a response. (If you had a more concise response, I can't find it.) The articles were discussed in a non-trivial way by the Greater Lansing Business Monthly, The State News, and the Lansing State Journal; two of those references actually having their own articles, which lends to their general credibility and reliability. Now if those references didn't actually clearly discuss the Malls in a non-trivial (meaning not in passing, or a short blurb) way, you could have brought those points up, and the AfDs would have been a means for you to learn how terms like "nontrivial" and "reliable" are interpreted by the Wikipedia community.
Now let's discuss this "Who cares?" argument. Just because you've never heard of it, or it seems like some run-of-the-mill whatever, doesn't mean that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. And it's the notability criteria, not a single user's awareness or tastes, that dictate what we include. For example, McDonald's is the world's largest chain of fast-food restaurants, but individual McDonald's locations may not be notable, unless they are a historic structure, or events of some significance have occurred there, or similar crtieria searchable and verifiable. Similarly, random crime events are not likely notable unless they are recognized in a special way by relevant elements of society in a way that we can verify. This means that reproduction of the story (identical or nearly identical copy) in different news outlets is not the same thing as different notable or reliable sources discussing it in their own ways.
Malls are not just articles about structures or random shopping centers. There usually needs to be some significance to the region, either economically or historically (which includes past economic impact). Since notability doesn't expire, a relatively unknown subject can still be a good article if there's reliable and verifiable evidence that it met the criteria during its presumed notable presence.
Now if you're examining the references of an article and you find obviously negligible mentions in its sourcing, you can always tag with {{ refimprove}} or similar. Our goal here is not strict deletionism (consistant rigorous application of strict standards for inclusion); nor is it inclusionism (add everything now; fix it later). It's a healthy balance of the two, which helps pare down excessive and trivial details in some more well-covered subjects and encourages improved sourcing on lesser known but still notable subjects.
Bottom line: if there's a chance or salvage or improvement, try to work on that, instead of judging based on your own criteria or deleting something just because you're unclear on how the subject meets the community-based criteria. When I first started, I went after a lot of things that were poorly sourced because I didn't know they were significant. It takes time, practice, and careful, careful reading — a lot of it!!! — to get a handle on AfD nominations. If you have more concise questions, I'll be glad to try and tackle them. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hellinabucket. No, there was a missing character < in one of your refs.
You can simply compare both versions in the page history and you can see what changed. Have a good day. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's me again. You should add at least the location of that park. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the precedent, but I only see one state with its own article, other than North Carolina. This information looks to be too big to incorporate into the main article. (See WP:Article size.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. On an unrelated issue in this edit
[2], you can give a reason why the name is not suitable by {{
usernameconcern|It is a promotional username}}
, and that replaces NO REASON GIVEN. Most admin/patrolling templates have up to 28 parameters, with a specific and defined order, that you must memorise before you are allowed to use them! --
Step
hen
00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Anti-trolling award
Thanks for stomping out that IP who was trying to troll me. Here are some new enforcer boots for you in case yours got dirty. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) |
Why don't you want to become a sysop? I am sure community will support you. Write to RfA, don't afraid. 91.145.227.195 ( talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember:
do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a
common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
Blueboy
96
18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) As you probably know by now, having your support means a lot to me given our past history. I appreciated your kind words about my honesty and policy knowledge. If you need some admin assistance in the future, don't hesitate to ask as I will be glad to help.
Thanks again, ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind photographing the Frontier Airlines headquarters, Frontier Center One, at 7001 Tower Road in Denver? The article needs a photograph of its headquarters. Thank you. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I dont know you so nothing personal but the other admin people I spoke to have been very ignorant, anyway I have asked for my account to be removed now.
I feel that no one is interested in the truth and no matter what I say I get deleted called a vandal and when I complain that get deleted as well!
so whats the point.
I am a little amazed that so many of the admin team do not care about the actual articles though.
I appreciate yours was the first note that wasn'st aggressive or personal. UkFaith ( talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you had tagged One and Only "T" with CSD A7. Just a heads up - A7 is explicit that it does not apply to albums. I think you wanted CSD A9 instead. A minor point, but incorrect tagging does slow down the deletion process. However, thanks for bringing the article to my attention; I have a feeling it probably will qualify for A9. Stephen! Coming... 13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now worries; keep up the good work at reverting vandalism. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate your wanting to get involved, and while the information was edit warred into the article, it was properly cited [3] to ABC news. The article very clearly identifies her as qualifying for that list.-- Crossmr ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you just call me a troll or were you agreeing with me? Joe Chill ( talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:DISPUTE, it should help you out. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I must warn you that if you continue to direct abusive remarks at me or continue to try and stir trouble deliberately you will be reported for personal attacks which are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please heed this warning. Thank you. UkFaith ( talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the notability guidelines by heart. I am not a new user. I have been a member for a year, but under a different account which I won't mention per my right to vanish. My main work on my other account was speedy deletes and AFDs and I did very good at that. But even though I did it correctly, people constantly acted like dicks to me. There was this one time when all I did was ask someone for sources in AFD and they harassed me like crazy which including insulting me because of my articles and nominating multiple articles of mine for deletion (which all ended up as keeps). There was even an admin that nominated an article of mine for deletion and said that I was attracted to poop because I created an article about a book that had to do with it (the result was keep). Another time, I nominated a book article for deletion and the creator kept on jumping to rude conclusions about me (the result was delete). The harassment caused me to create this account. I created a secondary account (see user page) for me to use to edit under when editing gets heated, but I still want to edit. Joe Chill ( talk) 06:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at the definition of trivia "unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information.". "X likes shoes" is trivia, "X is left handed" is trivia. When X is a professional athlete, "X won a race in the Olympics" is most definitely not trivia. Ironholds ( talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, and for your comments on the ANI page. I'm rather surprised at the knee jerk reaction that quickly followed. David Tombe ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that it is not. It's not the kind of edit that I would have made. I am interested in experimental measurements of permittivity. I am not interested in direct measurements of the speed of light and I've abandoned the article. An anonymous with a number like that does tend to monitor edits that I make. He has appeared on quite a few occasions before. I'm not planning on making any more physics edits at speed of light. I've left my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics page. My position on the matter is summed up by the simple statement that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. David Tombe ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hell in a Bucket!
Please could you not remove the AfD template from the top of a page unless you've closed the AfD as well? It makes things more difficult for the closer.
I do appreciate your integrity in withdrawing the AfD and recognise your good intentions in removing the template, though.
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me on Wikipedia. Article Graham Waterhouse, deleted August 2, back to life August 14, is on DYK right now, dyk? more to come, I like it!-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you put a COI note on User talk:Michaelhfreeman, when he hadn't edited any article in userspace but had only put a note on my userpage asking about correcting/expanding the article about himself. It would have been more appropriate to have given him a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help - an anon had changed his date of birth by 15 years, for a start. PamD ( talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still a little iffy on the copyright factor, but I'll go ahead and restore it since you're willing to make the effort. Thanks for letting me know. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. In the meantime, it's back up and you're good to go. Looking forward to the revamped version. :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in reporting username violations. Just as a note, it is not necessary to use the {{ Uw-username}} warning template on a user's talkpage if you intend to report them to WP:UAA, as the template implies that the user will have an opportunity to discuss the concern prior to any action being taken. Using both that warning template and then reporting the username sends the wrong message. Thanks, Sher eth 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the intent of your question -- I can only guess why the article wasn't deleted. Presumably, people ran notability checks and concluded it wasn't a vanity article.
For what it's worth, I heard Corcoran interviewed on the radio and he seemed notable so I created a basic page, figuring it would be polished over time, as it has been. Thanks for chipping in.
Uucp ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ adminhelp}} Out of curiousity, i can't access Contributions summary and edit count under my contributions it keeps telling me the page doesn't exist. any help.... Jake/Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
( EC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from California yellowtail, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Intelligent sium 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I did not revert your change because you had done anything wrong, but because the page you had given the warning for was actually a misplaced user page and I had moved it instead of deleting it. It was therefore inappropriate to leave the message behind. Maybe I should have undone it instead of rolling it back. Deb ( talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My issue- isn't the refactoring the talk page, that by itself is minor. The main concern is Discounting an well thought (backed by policiy) opinion completely solely for Grammer errors and a colorful history is very disturbing. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I will consider an apology, how was I hasty? Maybe you can help me understand. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not actually an admin, although I'm always willing to provide advice. I don't see any question of your past record, merely your attitude and style of writing. I'd say the warning is inappropriate since we have a general rule about templating the regular users; a polite query would've worked better, since a templated warning to an established user can seem facetious or patronising. Where exactly did she refactor a talkpage comment? Ironholds ( talk) 11:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so much. Sometimes we all need reminders regardless how experienced we are. Maybe you can point me to the policy that says I can do what I want if I make over so many contribs? The don't template the regulars one I can understand, but for the exemption of standards on a edit count would be helpful. My point is not self centered to myself only, I'm not the only one with the issue of a rough start but if we start allowing an attitude like that to anyone we open pandora's box. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Again though I am concerned with the attitude not the personal considerations here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Jake, it is time for you to do the adult thing and back off. You made a mistake in warning an editor over what was a good faith action - the editor made a mistake in biting back; long term editors are supposed to remember what it is to be new and enthusiastic and not 100% familiar with the rules, and explain themselves so there is better understanding in the future. You did not react well to the biting and went and asked a few people to look into the matter (which, notwithstanding the language, is a reasonable thing to do) and got replies which focussed on the errors on your part and not the long standing contributor. You got a bit of a crap deal, but this is going to happen from time to time and the best solution is just to accept it, learn whatever lessons you can find, and move on.
A couple of things - and this is just my personal opinion here - I would like to comment on; firstly, I think that established editors who do something wrong should get exactly the same response as a newbie, and anyone who gets pissy because they were templated need to remove their digit from where the sun don't shine and learn to breathe. It would at least remind them of the likely response of all the new accounts that they template, and anyway everyone is supposed to AGF so a template is just someone saying "careful" and everyone gets it wrong now and then. Secondly, if your contributions to article space are correctly spelled and formatted then who cares what your spelling is like in talkpages - as long as you are understood then it is fine; they are pages to facilitate communication, not a sodding literacy class.
Yup, you are not the editor I blocked and I am pretty impressed in how hard you have since worked in building the encyclopedia - and I think you deserve just as much consideration as a long time contributor. That said, try and spend more time reviewing matters before acting - when going to warn/advise an editor remember to look at their contrib history; look at the current page and see how many and what type of edits there are today (this gives an indication of how active they are) and then look at the earliest contrib and find out how long they have been here. If they are doing lots of edits in the same manner to a lot of articles, or many edits to one, and they have been here for a couple of years then they are likely a regular editor and you should interact with them appropriately (like, don't give them a newbie warning - try to discuss why they made a possibly non policy compliant edit). All this will come in time, so accept the knockbacks and the fact you will make mistakes because... it happens to experienced editors the same.
I hope this helps.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jake, I saw your name pop up on a few of my watched pages and got intrigued. I notice on your user page you've placed a box that says you'd like to be an admin one day. Now spending alot of time in areas where tempers can get frayed, such as WP:AFD runs a risk of annoying someone sooner or later, by the nature of the place rather than your own input into it. I am an inclusionist but more are deletion-minded and we all argue with those that can't see our points of view (hehehe).
A great way to edit more harmoniously is help out at some desperately needed areas - e.g. peer review. Here editors are hanging out for some input, any input on how their editing on an article is going. Anything helpful is good - e.g. if a technical article is hard to understand, just say so as us writers who like the technical stuff should be able to make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible. Another thing to do is try and write some Good articles, about something that you are interested in. Anyway, these places in general are alot more cooperative - folks will hugely appreciate any input at Peer Review.
Think about it, I'd rather trust someone with admin tools who appears helpful and cooperative. Anyway, take it or leave it, I just thought I'd drop a note :)
Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: I just saw your note on List of Colorado state parks on yer page - great area to get stuck into, I've done alot of nature articles so am good in this area and can help out :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) if you scroll down on the Peer Review page, you'll see lots of articles listed - the editors who placed them there are very grateful if folks can make a few observations. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How is it goin? I like your user name, I am also a deadhead. I have recently gotten into the transportation industry and saw that the articles on tug and barge companies were lacking. I was going to do K-Sea Transportation next. How can I fix the Bouchard article to get it up to snuff? There are numerous Tugboat companies that in my opinion deserve to be included. I saw that Crowley Maritime has an article and they are in the same field. Email me at andrewmfortunato@gmail.com if you can spare the time to lend me a hand. Thanks.
This is the same guy again, isn't it? I hope he doesn't think it's that easy to make sockpuppets! Deb ( talk) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay
Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe
listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.
User:MiszaBot III (
talk)
02:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Cmiych ( talk) 19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The phrase I shall euphemize as "FUE" is the name of the unstaged play the s.p.a. is unhappy about seeing deleted. It was neither trolling nor vandalism. I'd suggest you do a null edit and throw in an apologetic edit summary. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry i have not been on in a long time, but i have had modular science exams at school, and english and maths coming up as a GCSE a year early. I wish to know if i would be able to use my forensic book, general, as a sitation for creating an entire wiki page on a subject. I do not know what it is called, but i will relay the name when i get home. Also i wish to make a lot of changes to the "serology" page with this book as a citation, as there is a lot missing from it. please get back to me in the next week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC) sorry jake, i forgot to Stakingsin ( talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) havn't been on in a loong time. P.S why is everyone having a go at you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Got the names of the one i was on about, and another one. (both owned by me, i take a deep interest in forensics myself) One is called "crime investigation" and the other is called "hidden evidence" Stakingsin ( talk) 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How do i put a ref about something to back up my edits? (assuming that by tagged you meant reference) Stakingsin ( talk) 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to do an end run around your nomination, so I left word on the talk page. Thanks for the note; I'll go ahead and remove the nomination. Keep on tagging and bagging! :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 06:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the AN/I discussion started by Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?. As for sock-puppet suspicions, I would not be surprised if that editor has a history under other account names. His very first edit was to revert an edit of mine, which indicates to me he has had a past editing conflict with me. His second edit was a comment that started with, "I agree with 66.184.134.26 ...". That User:66.184.134.26 IP editor has also had editing conflicts with me, and edits the exact same articles - so either they are the same person, or Mr. Bias has decided to team up with him. Fight the bias's very first edit was to remove an edit of mine on the Susan Roesgen article, too. Users Jmcnamera and Jm131284 have also warred with me on the Roesgen article, with Jm131284 ending up perma-blocked for it. Perhaps some of the above editors are a reincarnation of Jm131284.
I see that you have started an SPI page on Mr. Bias. I haven't studied these editors very closely, but one comment I would make about your current notes: I doubt Jimintheatl is related; he edits some of the same articles as the above editors, but usually from an opposite point of view. Let me know if there is any way I can help, Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
the article listed 4 types of embedded options, each of which already has a page to itself, where detailed references are available. your editing reduces the article to a stub; it would have been prudent to simply put up a notice that it needs referencing. kindly undo the edit. sandy (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
i intend to add the treatment of embedded options for financial reporting purposes there, so i suppose the article needs to stand. do go ahead with categories, that may be helpful too. take care sandy ( talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Chhajjusandeep has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Find an interview with the words reboot coming from Abram's mouth, rather than the opinion of some writer at Gamespot. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the production team call it a reboot, none of the cast call it a reboot. The cast and crew did hundreds of interviews. I'm not going to spend all day reverting so make your case on the talk page, and look through the history of the page, as reboot has been added before and removed before. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the page and I'm happy with the wording. Of course there may be other editors who may want changes, but I'm fine with the wording. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} I'd like to create a collapsable box on my user page for the section on articles I created. I do not know how to. Would someone help me get it set up,? You have my permission to modify my user page if you do. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy tag. There is some implication of notability and meeting WP:BAND, if you feel that they do not meet the criteria, consider sending the article to AfD, since this isn't a clear cut deletions in my opinion.-- Terrillja talk 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi... your latest report to AIV was someone who (although certainly a spammer) had only one edit. Couldn't warnings be used instead and if they persist then they'd be blocked? Blocking is just a technical measure to stop someone from continuing to edit, but with only one edit we don't even know whether they'll make another one. -- Menti fisto 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I informed you of the three-revert rule because judging from the page history, you reverted three times in a 24-hour period: 17:08, September 16, 2009, 15:06, September 17, 2009, and 15:13, September 17, 2009. Preceding these reverts, there was light edit warring with Darrenhusted. This is why I asked you to discuss without editing. The back-and-forth, even if keeping it to three reverts per 24-hour period, is not conducive to Wikipedia nor this article. I hope you understand. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out.Hell In A Bucket
I am touched by your comment. Thank you. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this, I understand the principle, thank you. You might be interested in this remark. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll withdraw that comment but I find it curious that my edit was removed by one editor and then practically immediately removed by another with the same so-called finding. I think the edit is absolutely relevant to and appropriate for the Cracker Barrel page. I explained why and the edit was written in a very factual manner without personal commentary. Rlang5990 ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell, I have to log out now (and don't have time to figure out how to do a cliffnote) but if you check the history on the Cracker Barrel page with my signin, it's there. Rlang5990 ( talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTVAND is quite clear on what is and isn't vandalism. "There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as ... inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently." Mick's comment was uncivil but it wasn't gross personal harassment that crosses the line into the "Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate" section of WP:VAND. Whilst you're right that the guidelines might be clearer, I always counsel that a better course of action is not to label anything as vandalism unless it is utterly blatant, as this may cause further issues with the editor whose edits are being classed as such. To be honest, I don't think it's such a big deal here; Mick was going to be blocked anyway for the (mild) personal attack and edit-warring, given his history on such things. Black Kite 19:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I wish to upload two pictures and haave never done so. Can you post instructions that are easy to understand here so I can do so? Thank you.
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant to let you know that your comment at the Arbcom proceeding is the most insightful and on target one I've read. It also has the merit of being concise and still covering all the bases, which is a wonderful feat in and of itself. You obviously grasped the situation, cut to the chase, and were fair in suggesting an appropriate resolution to end the silly and needless drama. I apologize for being too lazy to dig up an approptiate barnstar, so you'll have to settle for my thanks and congratulations on having a clue.
The only part I differ on is the last bit where you seem to indicate some support for my original topic ban. The history is that at Wizardman's request I participated in the proceeding and spent hours providing dozens of diffs of the incivility and hostile atmosphere at the Obama articles. So I was shocked when the decision came down that the editors at the receiving end of the abuse should be restricted. I suppose that's an expedient way to sweep the problem under the rug and appease the mob, but in addition to being morally wrong it seems a very shortsighted way to end a dispute without getting to its root cause. And, in fact, I think it's gone a long way in feeding the beast. But it's hard to follow along on all these complicated dispute histories, so I'll try to forgive you. I'm certainly nitpicking and I know that nobody is perfect. :) Haha. Take care.
And watch out for the monkeys! ;) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I am still in need of help for uploading a picture. I couldn't figure out the IRC chat so here I am...
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I can try and help you HiaB, I have uploaded quite a few pics. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Re [7]. He isn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ang Mey - a page you tagged - because: I have identified the subject, and will properly establish context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype ( talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. If you read through the article, you'll see that it is written in a very objective way, complete with references, links, AllMusic discography, etc. Thanks for your time. Brentmwatkins ( talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)brentmwatkins
Hi there,
I'm trying to improve the article Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES) to keep it from being deleted, for lack of notability and the appearance of "promotion". The following changes have been made to the article:
You also mention the article as a possible "redirect", but I am not sure what you meant specifically.
I'll post these comments in the discussion on deletion as well. Dodecahedronic ( talk) 14:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your help re: FOLMADS, Inc.. Wondering if you might weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination) if you have a moment. Thanks, Spamandeggs ( talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You know that you were mentioned in the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN). I wrote something in support of you. I wrote that I didn't like you at first but after some communication, things resolved. Therefore, others should try to work with you first before saying that you are bad. You should also look at your own behavior to make sure that you aren't doing things to make others dislike you. In the end, I think you are reasonable so if everyone, you and them, work positively, things will be ok! User F203 ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
Please Note: I have spcecifically indicated in the text of the article, that THERE ARE TWO VIEPOINTS. Regardless of the fact that I can definitely see why THE CURRENT, SINGLE, DESCTIBED VIEWPOINT, IS NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT RATHER ALSO - ABUSIVE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE WHO HOLD THE OTHER (UNMENTIONED) VIEPOINT, I specifically took the trouble to mention BOTH, whereas NOBODY ELSE HAS BOTHERED.
I request that all involved shall calm down, out of their own volition, any emotional reflexes of tantrums, and of abuse towards other people's views, provoking war related to an ARTICLE ABOUT A MOVIE (!!!), NOT ABOUT SRVIVAL OF MANKIND.
Thank you.
-- Shimon Yanowitz ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say you shot your arguement in the fooot with the verbage, "the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie" without a backup to say this is true then this is unreliable and original research. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
For future ref, to file a 3RR you need the first version reverted to, then 2 reverts, a 3RR warning, an attempt to discuss the revert on the talkpage, the third revert (4th edit) then the fourth revert. The fourth revert (fifth edit) is the point at which a report is filed, and you have to avoid making more than three edits yourself. Shimon Yanowitz never got to the fifth edit, so could not have a 3RR report filed, however his edits were disruptive anyway. Darrenhusted ( talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks go out to
Darrenhusted for his good-will and civil peace-making efforts on this.
-- Shimon Yanowitz ( talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You reverted before I could reply on the talk page, but what sources contradict aMoL being a trilogy/series/whatever title? Every source I found says it will be, including Tor's press release, and multiple comments by Sanderson. Rehevkor ✉ 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea; maybe we can find a template at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace to put on Talk:Star Trek (film) not to talk about such topics so generally? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have got 3rd party confirmation on my Book, 3awww by a user of wikipedia. Butchre ( talk) 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly thats stupid. somebody edited my page confirming they have read it. so un-nominate it Butchre ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
whats sock-puppetry? Big joc ( talk) 14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
to be honest, i dont know how to supply you with a reliable source as this is only a small budget book in rural ireland Butchre ( talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me how you think this mall isn't notable. The first version of the article, deleted via the first AFD, had no sources at all. There was also a second, unsourced version which was deleted by PROD (yeah, shouldn't have happened). This version has plenty of sources. Oh yeah, and the last AFD was over 2 years ago. AFDs that old don't usually hold up in G4-ish discussions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Bucket, I've speedily kept both AFDs. You really should familiarize yourself more with WP:N as well as the deletion policy, and you shouldn't use Twinkle--especially for speedy deletions or AFDs--until you do. The next deletion nomination of any sort that is deemed to be pointy may result in you being blocked. Blueboy 96 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) No, sorry, we can't "agree to disagree". Neither you nor I have any overwhelming sway on the community's criteria. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't simply get to act all willy-nilly on this site without any regard for the entire community's will. If an article meets those criteria, especially overwhelmingly, your continued nominations of such articles based on your own opinion and nothing else is disruptive. I strongly recommend that you refrain from participating in AfD nominations and other deletion procedures unless and until you accept the community's criteria over your own. 15:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have somewhat defended your actions on the AN thread, but I will offer you same advice here as I did in that thread: it might be in your own best interests to concentrate on areas outside of deletion until he gets a better handle on our policies (or are willing to accept them for what they are if you are, in fact, ignoring them in favor of what you believe to be best as others have asserted). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell, AfD can be a pretty unpleasant place sometimes. In fact, so can other areas of Wikipedia when there is passion or emotional attachment. The editors who last here and enjoy their working tend to be able to let stuff go and to realize early on that many goo dfaith efforts will fail. Right and wrong don't always matter here. You will win some battles you lose others. Sometimes the pendulum of views here swings one way, sometimes another.
Particularly on the side of deleting other people's work you can expect to receive criticism, and I think some of the criticism should be taken seriously and considered carefully. What is notable to one person may not be notable to another. I think our policies generally favor inclusion and preservation when in doubt, because we are paperless and serve a wide variety of people with diverse interests. That's not to say that there isn't an awful lot of that can be appropriately deleted, but there's also a lot of stuff that just needs trimming, merging, tweaking or redirecting.
I'm just offering my two cents. Have fun. And please add content and help build the encyclopedia wherever possible. :) I know clean-up counts too, but it's fun and rewarding sometimes to plant flowers instead of always trying to pull up the weeds (which sometimes flower too). Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I was rather clear as to my own personal expectations from the average user, that one would read things carefully, but perhaps my response fits under the category of "tl;dr". That makes this exercise difficult, don't you think? If I offer my concise thoughts and you don't really read it all? This is at least how it appears to me because of my expectation of your intelligence; even in more strenuous editing in the past I could tell that you were an intelligent person, so why some things slip your grasp is something I can't comprehend. So I am trying to be patient and not bite.
Let's take Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall. Your argument for deletion was basically "Who cares?", because, when asked to clarify based on Wikipedia's general notability criteria, you didn't seem to have a response. (If you had a more concise response, I can't find it.) The articles were discussed in a non-trivial way by the Greater Lansing Business Monthly, The State News, and the Lansing State Journal; two of those references actually having their own articles, which lends to their general credibility and reliability. Now if those references didn't actually clearly discuss the Malls in a non-trivial (meaning not in passing, or a short blurb) way, you could have brought those points up, and the AfDs would have been a means for you to learn how terms like "nontrivial" and "reliable" are interpreted by the Wikipedia community.
Now let's discuss this "Who cares?" argument. Just because you've never heard of it, or it seems like some run-of-the-mill whatever, doesn't mean that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. And it's the notability criteria, not a single user's awareness or tastes, that dictate what we include. For example, McDonald's is the world's largest chain of fast-food restaurants, but individual McDonald's locations may not be notable, unless they are a historic structure, or events of some significance have occurred there, or similar crtieria searchable and verifiable. Similarly, random crime events are not likely notable unless they are recognized in a special way by relevant elements of society in a way that we can verify. This means that reproduction of the story (identical or nearly identical copy) in different news outlets is not the same thing as different notable or reliable sources discussing it in their own ways.
Malls are not just articles about structures or random shopping centers. There usually needs to be some significance to the region, either economically or historically (which includes past economic impact). Since notability doesn't expire, a relatively unknown subject can still be a good article if there's reliable and verifiable evidence that it met the criteria during its presumed notable presence.
Now if you're examining the references of an article and you find obviously negligible mentions in its sourcing, you can always tag with {{ refimprove}} or similar. Our goal here is not strict deletionism (consistant rigorous application of strict standards for inclusion); nor is it inclusionism (add everything now; fix it later). It's a healthy balance of the two, which helps pare down excessive and trivial details in some more well-covered subjects and encourages improved sourcing on lesser known but still notable subjects.
Bottom line: if there's a chance or salvage or improvement, try to work on that, instead of judging based on your own criteria or deleting something just because you're unclear on how the subject meets the community-based criteria. When I first started, I went after a lot of things that were poorly sourced because I didn't know they were significant. It takes time, practice, and careful, careful reading — a lot of it!!! — to get a handle on AfD nominations. If you have more concise questions, I'll be glad to try and tackle them. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hellinabucket. No, there was a missing character < in one of your refs.
You can simply compare both versions in the page history and you can see what changed. Have a good day. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's me again. You should add at least the location of that park. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the precedent, but I only see one state with its own article, other than North Carolina. This information looks to be too big to incorporate into the main article. (See WP:Article size.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. On an unrelated issue in this edit
[2], you can give a reason why the name is not suitable by {{
usernameconcern|It is a promotional username}}
, and that replaces NO REASON GIVEN. Most admin/patrolling templates have up to 28 parameters, with a specific and defined order, that you must memorise before you are allowed to use them! --
Step
hen
00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Anti-trolling award
Thanks for stomping out that IP who was trying to troll me. Here are some new enforcer boots for you in case yours got dirty. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) |
Why don't you want to become a sysop? I am sure community will support you. Write to RfA, don't afraid. 91.145.227.195 ( talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember:
do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a
common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
Blueboy
96
18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) As you probably know by now, having your support means a lot to me given our past history. I appreciated your kind words about my honesty and policy knowledge. If you need some admin assistance in the future, don't hesitate to ask as I will be glad to help.
Thanks again, ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind photographing the Frontier Airlines headquarters, Frontier Center One, at 7001 Tower Road in Denver? The article needs a photograph of its headquarters. Thank you. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I dont know you so nothing personal but the other admin people I spoke to have been very ignorant, anyway I have asked for my account to be removed now.
I feel that no one is interested in the truth and no matter what I say I get deleted called a vandal and when I complain that get deleted as well!
so whats the point.
I am a little amazed that so many of the admin team do not care about the actual articles though.
I appreciate yours was the first note that wasn'st aggressive or personal. UkFaith ( talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you had tagged One and Only "T" with CSD A7. Just a heads up - A7 is explicit that it does not apply to albums. I think you wanted CSD A9 instead. A minor point, but incorrect tagging does slow down the deletion process. However, thanks for bringing the article to my attention; I have a feeling it probably will qualify for A9. Stephen! Coming... 13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Now worries; keep up the good work at reverting vandalism. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate your wanting to get involved, and while the information was edit warred into the article, it was properly cited [3] to ABC news. The article very clearly identifies her as qualifying for that list.-- Crossmr ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you just call me a troll or were you agreeing with me? Joe Chill ( talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:DISPUTE, it should help you out. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I must warn you that if you continue to direct abusive remarks at me or continue to try and stir trouble deliberately you will be reported for personal attacks which are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please heed this warning. Thank you. UkFaith ( talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the notability guidelines by heart. I am not a new user. I have been a member for a year, but under a different account which I won't mention per my right to vanish. My main work on my other account was speedy deletes and AFDs and I did very good at that. But even though I did it correctly, people constantly acted like dicks to me. There was this one time when all I did was ask someone for sources in AFD and they harassed me like crazy which including insulting me because of my articles and nominating multiple articles of mine for deletion (which all ended up as keeps). There was even an admin that nominated an article of mine for deletion and said that I was attracted to poop because I created an article about a book that had to do with it (the result was keep). Another time, I nominated a book article for deletion and the creator kept on jumping to rude conclusions about me (the result was delete). The harassment caused me to create this account. I created a secondary account (see user page) for me to use to edit under when editing gets heated, but I still want to edit. Joe Chill ( talk) 06:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at the definition of trivia "unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information.". "X likes shoes" is trivia, "X is left handed" is trivia. When X is a professional athlete, "X won a race in the Olympics" is most definitely not trivia. Ironholds ( talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, and for your comments on the ANI page. I'm rather surprised at the knee jerk reaction that quickly followed. David Tombe ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that it is not. It's not the kind of edit that I would have made. I am interested in experimental measurements of permittivity. I am not interested in direct measurements of the speed of light and I've abandoned the article. An anonymous with a number like that does tend to monitor edits that I make. He has appeared on quite a few occasions before. I'm not planning on making any more physics edits at speed of light. I've left my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics page. My position on the matter is summed up by the simple statement that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. David Tombe ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hell in a Bucket!
Please could you not remove the AfD template from the top of a page unless you've closed the AfD as well? It makes things more difficult for the closer.
I do appreciate your integrity in withdrawing the AfD and recognise your good intentions in removing the template, though.
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me on Wikipedia. Article Graham Waterhouse, deleted August 2, back to life August 14, is on DYK right now, dyk? more to come, I like it!-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you put a COI note on User talk:Michaelhfreeman, when he hadn't edited any article in userspace but had only put a note on my userpage asking about correcting/expanding the article about himself. It would have been more appropriate to have given him a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help - an anon had changed his date of birth by 15 years, for a start. PamD ( talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still a little iffy on the copyright factor, but I'll go ahead and restore it since you're willing to make the effort. Thanks for letting me know. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. In the meantime, it's back up and you're good to go. Looking forward to the revamped version. :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in reporting username violations. Just as a note, it is not necessary to use the {{ Uw-username}} warning template on a user's talkpage if you intend to report them to WP:UAA, as the template implies that the user will have an opportunity to discuss the concern prior to any action being taken. Using both that warning template and then reporting the username sends the wrong message. Thanks, Sher eth 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the intent of your question -- I can only guess why the article wasn't deleted. Presumably, people ran notability checks and concluded it wasn't a vanity article.
For what it's worth, I heard Corcoran interviewed on the radio and he seemed notable so I created a basic page, figuring it would be polished over time, as it has been. Thanks for chipping in.
Uucp ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ adminhelp}} Out of curiousity, i can't access Contributions summary and edit count under my contributions it keeps telling me the page doesn't exist. any help.... Jake/Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
( EC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from California yellowtail, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Intelligent sium 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I did not revert your change because you had done anything wrong, but because the page you had given the warning for was actually a misplaced user page and I had moved it instead of deleting it. It was therefore inappropriate to leave the message behind. Maybe I should have undone it instead of rolling it back. Deb ( talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My issue- isn't the refactoring the talk page, that by itself is minor. The main concern is Discounting an well thought (backed by policiy) opinion completely solely for Grammer errors and a colorful history is very disturbing. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I will consider an apology, how was I hasty? Maybe you can help me understand. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not actually an admin, although I'm always willing to provide advice. I don't see any question of your past record, merely your attitude and style of writing. I'd say the warning is inappropriate since we have a general rule about templating the regular users; a polite query would've worked better, since a templated warning to an established user can seem facetious or patronising. Where exactly did she refactor a talkpage comment? Ironholds ( talk) 11:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so much. Sometimes we all need reminders regardless how experienced we are. Maybe you can point me to the policy that says I can do what I want if I make over so many contribs? The don't template the regulars one I can understand, but for the exemption of standards on a edit count would be helpful. My point is not self centered to myself only, I'm not the only one with the issue of a rough start but if we start allowing an attitude like that to anyone we open pandora's box. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Again though I am concerned with the attitude not the personal considerations here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Jake, it is time for you to do the adult thing and back off. You made a mistake in warning an editor over what was a good faith action - the editor made a mistake in biting back; long term editors are supposed to remember what it is to be new and enthusiastic and not 100% familiar with the rules, and explain themselves so there is better understanding in the future. You did not react well to the biting and went and asked a few people to look into the matter (which, notwithstanding the language, is a reasonable thing to do) and got replies which focussed on the errors on your part and not the long standing contributor. You got a bit of a crap deal, but this is going to happen from time to time and the best solution is just to accept it, learn whatever lessons you can find, and move on.
A couple of things - and this is just my personal opinion here - I would like to comment on; firstly, I think that established editors who do something wrong should get exactly the same response as a newbie, and anyone who gets pissy because they were templated need to remove their digit from where the sun don't shine and learn to breathe. It would at least remind them of the likely response of all the new accounts that they template, and anyway everyone is supposed to AGF so a template is just someone saying "careful" and everyone gets it wrong now and then. Secondly, if your contributions to article space are correctly spelled and formatted then who cares what your spelling is like in talkpages - as long as you are understood then it is fine; they are pages to facilitate communication, not a sodding literacy class.
Yup, you are not the editor I blocked and I am pretty impressed in how hard you have since worked in building the encyclopedia - and I think you deserve just as much consideration as a long time contributor. That said, try and spend more time reviewing matters before acting - when going to warn/advise an editor remember to look at their contrib history; look at the current page and see how many and what type of edits there are today (this gives an indication of how active they are) and then look at the earliest contrib and find out how long they have been here. If they are doing lots of edits in the same manner to a lot of articles, or many edits to one, and they have been here for a couple of years then they are likely a regular editor and you should interact with them appropriately (like, don't give them a newbie warning - try to discuss why they made a possibly non policy compliant edit). All this will come in time, so accept the knockbacks and the fact you will make mistakes because... it happens to experienced editors the same.
I hope this helps.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jake, I saw your name pop up on a few of my watched pages and got intrigued. I notice on your user page you've placed a box that says you'd like to be an admin one day. Now spending alot of time in areas where tempers can get frayed, such as WP:AFD runs a risk of annoying someone sooner or later, by the nature of the place rather than your own input into it. I am an inclusionist but more are deletion-minded and we all argue with those that can't see our points of view (hehehe).
A great way to edit more harmoniously is help out at some desperately needed areas - e.g. peer review. Here editors are hanging out for some input, any input on how their editing on an article is going. Anything helpful is good - e.g. if a technical article is hard to understand, just say so as us writers who like the technical stuff should be able to make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible. Another thing to do is try and write some Good articles, about something that you are interested in. Anyway, these places in general are alot more cooperative - folks will hugely appreciate any input at Peer Review.
Think about it, I'd rather trust someone with admin tools who appears helpful and cooperative. Anyway, take it or leave it, I just thought I'd drop a note :)
Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: I just saw your note on List of Colorado state parks on yer page - great area to get stuck into, I've done alot of nature articles so am good in this area and can help out :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) if you scroll down on the Peer Review page, you'll see lots of articles listed - the editors who placed them there are very grateful if folks can make a few observations. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How is it goin? I like your user name, I am also a deadhead. I have recently gotten into the transportation industry and saw that the articles on tug and barge companies were lacking. I was going to do K-Sea Transportation next. How can I fix the Bouchard article to get it up to snuff? There are numerous Tugboat companies that in my opinion deserve to be included. I saw that Crowley Maritime has an article and they are in the same field. Email me at andrewmfortunato@gmail.com if you can spare the time to lend me a hand. Thanks.
This is the same guy again, isn't it? I hope he doesn't think it's that easy to make sockpuppets! Deb ( talk) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay
Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe
listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.
User:MiszaBot III (
talk)
02:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Cmiych ( talk) 19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The phrase I shall euphemize as "FUE" is the name of the unstaged play the s.p.a. is unhappy about seeing deleted. It was neither trolling nor vandalism. I'd suggest you do a null edit and throw in an apologetic edit summary. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry i have not been on in a long time, but i have had modular science exams at school, and english and maths coming up as a GCSE a year early. I wish to know if i would be able to use my forensic book, general, as a sitation for creating an entire wiki page on a subject. I do not know what it is called, but i will relay the name when i get home. Also i wish to make a lot of changes to the "serology" page with this book as a citation, as there is a lot missing from it. please get back to me in the next week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC) sorry jake, i forgot to Stakingsin ( talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) havn't been on in a loong time. P.S why is everyone having a go at you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Got the names of the one i was on about, and another one. (both owned by me, i take a deep interest in forensics myself) One is called "crime investigation" and the other is called "hidden evidence" Stakingsin ( talk) 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How do i put a ref about something to back up my edits? (assuming that by tagged you meant reference) Stakingsin ( talk) 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to do an end run around your nomination, so I left word on the talk page. Thanks for the note; I'll go ahead and remove the nomination. Keep on tagging and bagging! :) -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 06:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the AN/I discussion started by Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?. As for sock-puppet suspicions, I would not be surprised if that editor has a history under other account names. His very first edit was to revert an edit of mine, which indicates to me he has had a past editing conflict with me. His second edit was a comment that started with, "I agree with 66.184.134.26 ...". That User:66.184.134.26 IP editor has also had editing conflicts with me, and edits the exact same articles - so either they are the same person, or Mr. Bias has decided to team up with him. Fight the bias's very first edit was to remove an edit of mine on the Susan Roesgen article, too. Users Jmcnamera and Jm131284 have also warred with me on the Roesgen article, with Jm131284 ending up perma-blocked for it. Perhaps some of the above editors are a reincarnation of Jm131284.
I see that you have started an SPI page on Mr. Bias. I haven't studied these editors very closely, but one comment I would make about your current notes: I doubt Jimintheatl is related; he edits some of the same articles as the above editors, but usually from an opposite point of view. Let me know if there is any way I can help, Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
the article listed 4 types of embedded options, each of which already has a page to itself, where detailed references are available. your editing reduces the article to a stub; it would have been prudent to simply put up a notice that it needs referencing. kindly undo the edit. sandy (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
i intend to add the treatment of embedded options for financial reporting purposes there, so i suppose the article needs to stand. do go ahead with categories, that may be helpful too. take care sandy ( talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Chhajjusandeep has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Find an interview with the words reboot coming from Abram's mouth, rather than the opinion of some writer at Gamespot. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the production team call it a reboot, none of the cast call it a reboot. The cast and crew did hundreds of interviews. I'm not going to spend all day reverting so make your case on the talk page, and look through the history of the page, as reboot has been added before and removed before. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the page and I'm happy with the wording. Of course there may be other editors who may want changes, but I'm fine with the wording. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} I'd like to create a collapsable box on my user page for the section on articles I created. I do not know how to. Would someone help me get it set up,? You have my permission to modify my user page if you do. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy tag. There is some implication of notability and meeting WP:BAND, if you feel that they do not meet the criteria, consider sending the article to AfD, since this isn't a clear cut deletions in my opinion.-- Terrillja talk 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi... your latest report to AIV was someone who (although certainly a spammer) had only one edit. Couldn't warnings be used instead and if they persist then they'd be blocked? Blocking is just a technical measure to stop someone from continuing to edit, but with only one edit we don't even know whether they'll make another one. -- Menti fisto 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I informed you of the three-revert rule because judging from the page history, you reverted three times in a 24-hour period: 17:08, September 16, 2009, 15:06, September 17, 2009, and 15:13, September 17, 2009. Preceding these reverts, there was light edit warring with Darrenhusted. This is why I asked you to discuss without editing. The back-and-forth, even if keeping it to three reverts per 24-hour period, is not conducive to Wikipedia nor this article. I hope you understand. Erik ( talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out.Hell In A Bucket
I am touched by your comment. Thank you. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this, I understand the principle, thank you. You might be interested in this remark. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll withdraw that comment but I find it curious that my edit was removed by one editor and then practically immediately removed by another with the same so-called finding. I think the edit is absolutely relevant to and appropriate for the Cracker Barrel page. I explained why and the edit was written in a very factual manner without personal commentary. Rlang5990 ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell, I have to log out now (and don't have time to figure out how to do a cliffnote) but if you check the history on the Cracker Barrel page with my signin, it's there. Rlang5990 ( talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTVAND is quite clear on what is and isn't vandalism. "There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as ... inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently." Mick's comment was uncivil but it wasn't gross personal harassment that crosses the line into the "Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate" section of WP:VAND. Whilst you're right that the guidelines might be clearer, I always counsel that a better course of action is not to label anything as vandalism unless it is utterly blatant, as this may cause further issues with the editor whose edits are being classed as such. To be honest, I don't think it's such a big deal here; Mick was going to be blocked anyway for the (mild) personal attack and edit-warring, given his history on such things. Black Kite 19:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I wish to upload two pictures and haave never done so. Can you post instructions that are easy to understand here so I can do so? Thank you.
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant to let you know that your comment at the Arbcom proceeding is the most insightful and on target one I've read. It also has the merit of being concise and still covering all the bases, which is a wonderful feat in and of itself. You obviously grasped the situation, cut to the chase, and were fair in suggesting an appropriate resolution to end the silly and needless drama. I apologize for being too lazy to dig up an approptiate barnstar, so you'll have to settle for my thanks and congratulations on having a clue.
The only part I differ on is the last bit where you seem to indicate some support for my original topic ban. The history is that at Wizardman's request I participated in the proceeding and spent hours providing dozens of diffs of the incivility and hostile atmosphere at the Obama articles. So I was shocked when the decision came down that the editors at the receiving end of the abuse should be restricted. I suppose that's an expedient way to sweep the problem under the rug and appease the mob, but in addition to being morally wrong it seems a very shortsighted way to end a dispute without getting to its root cause. And, in fact, I think it's gone a long way in feeding the beast. But it's hard to follow along on all these complicated dispute histories, so I'll try to forgive you. I'm certainly nitpicking and I know that nobody is perfect. :) Haha. Take care.
And watch out for the monkeys! ;) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I am still in need of help for uploading a picture. I couldn't figure out the IRC chat so here I am...
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I can try and help you HiaB, I have uploaded quite a few pics. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Re [7]. He isn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ang Mey - a page you tagged - because: I have identified the subject, and will properly establish context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype ( talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. If you read through the article, you'll see that it is written in a very objective way, complete with references, links, AllMusic discography, etc. Thanks for your time. Brentmwatkins ( talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)brentmwatkins
Hi there,
I'm trying to improve the article Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES) to keep it from being deleted, for lack of notability and the appearance of "promotion". The following changes have been made to the article:
You also mention the article as a possible "redirect", but I am not sure what you meant specifically.
I'll post these comments in the discussion on deletion as well. Dodecahedronic ( talk) 14:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)