The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 21 - December 2008 | |
|
Papa November and S. Dean Jameson joined the alternative music fold during December.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had a more thorough look at the case you raised on my talk page, and I agree with your conclusions. I've added some additional evidence. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, hi, I looked at your recent deletion here: [1] You raised a valid point in the edit summary, but just because one source may be questionable, does not mean that an entire section should be deleted. Some of the sources in that paragraph looked fine. So instead of doing wholesale deletion of well-sourced information, could you perhaps try editing the section to try and provide a compromise version? -- El on ka 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I found your comment 'trivial junk' to be blunt and offensive. Please be more polite.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Captain-tucker (
talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Regarding these comments you made on the Talk:Muhammad page:
It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it.
This is a remarkable show of bad faith. I would suggest you reconsider your words here; such blanket prejudgments make it impossible to collaborate. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 23 - February 2009 | |
|
MikeGruz and Blackadam2 joined the alternative music fold during February.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes he was knighted, read the article. Your scarcasm shows a lack of profesionalism. I'd appriciate it if you read the article. If you still don't believe me, I would at least like the other part of my post to be left up, as it is clearly stated in the Roling Stone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieG2448 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tarc. I see that you have uploaded this image, but the only article that used it was turned into a redirect through a deletion discussion, and so the image is not currently being used. I'm not the one who tagged the image for deletion, I believe a bot did, but it will be deleted on March 8, 2009 as it is orphaned non-free content.-- Disturbed Nerd 999 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
How long do you think the WND idiots will stick around? I'm hoping to get back to editing the article. Btw, I left you a response w/reference to Obama and Wright. Soxwon ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am not going to respond your disrespect anymore. I simply created a discussion thread about the problems that are systemic that I saw. That is all. You seem to be deeply scared or intimidated by my point and are thus waging some strange "obamamania" war on me that I simply do not get. If you wanted to prove your "fascist" whatever idea that you said I thought then simply continue your feud with me. You are the one opposing the Jimbo guidelines not I. I don't think I have anything else to say to you. Leave my discussions alone and stop violating your tools. JohnHistory (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:History_of_Terrorism if you want to. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on AN/I. [2] Please note that the substantive discussion of this matter was moved to WP:BLP/N after three of the articles in question were protected. I just came back to report that the editor responsible for it was continuing to edit war on a fourth article. Cheers, Wikidemon ( talk) 14:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick point I wanted to raise, you write in your edit summary that if the crap isn't suitable for an article, it isn't suitable for inclusion. That isn't exactly true. The article about Obama's teleprompter usage was rightly deleted as a stand-alone, POVFork. As a stand-alone article, there were many, many issues. However, that does not mean that a line or a section in a broader article touching on the same material would automatically be excluded. We do not want articles that serve as content forks and are solely used to document criticism, praise, etc. However, we don't exclude criticism, praise, etc. just because it would be unfit for a separate article. Take for instance John McCain's "100 years" comment. Would it be suitable to include that as a separate article, of course not. But it is mentioned or discussed in the United States presidential election, 2008, Mother Jones (magazine), Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, and Not Alex articles (some of which I'm sure you are aware of, because of your good work on the US political articles). So just because it isn't right for one place doesn't mean it's not right for another. If you respond, please keep it here to not fragment the discussion. Or delete this, either way is fine. :-) Mahalo, Tarc. -- Ali'i 15:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I have a dispute with you before going forward with it. I believe you abused your tools when you prevented me from writing on my own talk page and made it impossible to appeal my block. I think your actions were based on a desire to censor me inappropriately. I have observed you also going after other people you disagree with in a similarly unprofessional manner. You may be well entrenched here but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that I think you are being abusive and that I am going to follow up on it when I have the time. JohnHistory ( talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
On your front page. I didn't realize I was editting alongside a celebrity. Soxwon ( talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 24 - March 2009 | |
|
LizParker and Cavie78 joined the alternative music fold during March.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, you suggested the discussion at an editor's talk page rather than at the article's talk page, so here we go (or am I not allowed to post on your talk page? Kidding, just a little joke!). Seriously, I think you smell something fishy with the new user "Hawaii57". But, what if they are just a new user unfamiliar with the Wiki way of doing things, and are making an honest effort to improve the article (from their inexperienced perspective)? It that possible in your view? Plausible? If not plausible, how does that jive with AGF? The operative point is that I recognize there is a group of editors sympathetic to the president, and that's OK. Hell, there's a group of editors bent on his failure. But, if there is no way for anyone new to make suggestions to improve the article, why not just archive the whole damnned thing? Zip it up, assuming that everything that should be said about Obama has been said. No other views welcome, unless they meet with approval from the "experience editors." Is that how you wanted to edit when you first started at Wikipedia? I don't know about you, but it kinda reminds me of a certain totalitarian regime where asking questions without the fear of censorship was verbotten. I am not suggesting that is the goal of you and others, merely that there is a perception of that being the goal from those of us who have a differing viewpoint. It doesn't make you right or me wrong. It doesn't make me bad or you good. It just makes us different. So, will you help? Turn a new leaf? I bring it to you here so as to not appear to be grandstanding (which was not my intention). I have seen hatred and the horrific things that mankind can do to each other; I fight that kind of hostility wherever I can. Am I perfect, hell no. But, it is certainly worth a shot to at least try to be civil to each other and not automatically assume the worst. If every new edior that asks a question (well intentioned or not) is shot on the spot for daring to cross the status quo, then Wikipedia as a project will fail. As Reagan was quoted as saying, "Trust, but verify." Now, I have probably mused too much, so I'll leave it to you. QueenofBattle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
← FWIW, I'm with you on this, Tarc. It's all just too familiar. Tvoz/ talk 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right about that. I rarely edit in the template namespace. Would you please add the link to relevant articles instead, see that the page is created before Obama's first budget? I hope you can realise where I'm coming from. Ottre 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already noted the aforementioned irony in a diff in my "response to 'evidence'". -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. May I respectfully suggest that you give this editor a little room, and also an extra dose of respect and courtesy? I know you believe some of his (her?) edits to be unhelpful and I won't disagree. But I think harshness or confrontation is likely to hurt things on another front, which is to encourage the editor to develop positive feelings for fellow Wikipedians and stop perceiving of others as being out to get them. There is an admin, Bigtimepeace, actively watching over this now. I don't expect an admin to resolve every last minor detail. They will probably let the small stuff pass and concentrate on the main things. Bigtimepeace has already noted that some of your stronger comments were unduly harsh. It probably works at cross purposes for others to get in the way at this point. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi: Which part of my edit summary do you disagree with? You are aware that you are a) misrepresenting WP:TERRORIST as a policy, b) restoring a box which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and WP:TALK since it misuses a guideline to forclose discussion relevant to the article's quality, c) restoring a box which is not templated, and hence impossible to maintain, and thus potentially misleading in the future, are you not? I undid one of your changes, will not undo others until you reply, or a suitable amount of time elapses. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm firmly convinced I'm in the right about this one. Ray Talk 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new template called {{ terrorist}} that could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
After several months, he's back to switching the Genre on every foo fighters-related article to alt rock. He's editing primarily from 67.242.56.62. Somehow, my petition for a ban was denied. -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hardly need to tell you to be careful Tarc. There are some odd things, over several pages, cropping up in succession, at a crucial moment. Provocative, ill-formed, etc. One can hazard a couple of provisory readings of these things, what the point of it might be, if this is not just chance. My reading is, get detached, withdraw, observe the end result. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was noted of a sourcing issue between you and ChildofMidnight. To prevent an edit war, I made a note on the talk page for you two to talk it over there. Wizardman 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked you to withdraw a personal attack from Jimmy Wales talk page, please do so and desist from attacking other editors with whom you disagree in such an aggressive fashion in future. There simply are no excuses for such atmosphere poisoning. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed whilst you left a comment here...you didn't actually vote keep or delete. would you like to? thanks LibStar ( talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I referred to one of your comments in regard to an ANI about another user. LibStar ( talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 26 - May 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain this, User:SqueakBox/wikipedia founder, within the contexxt of me allegedly hounding QuackGuru. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused as to this edit, as it doesn't seem to fit with the logic of your edit summary. You reinserted Palin's interpretation and included other unnecessary details. Was it in error? -- ZimZalaBim talk 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, are you an Obama supporter? If so, then I think you should recuse yourself from being an administrator on all Obama related articles. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.
The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why mentioning Obama's race as "African American" is not racist, while mentioning the race of his mother is? It seems to be a total hypocrisy. In fact it in not accurate without mentioning his mother, instead it promotes a fiction that is easily disproved, and is more in line with political propaganda than real information. Robtmorris ( talk) 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Several months ago you commented on an edit I made. I found it offensive. I kindly suggested that you be more polite to others. I unwatched your discussion page trusting that you would behave better. Well, I have just checked back.
You are a unique Wikipedian and so are your discussion page posts. Half of the content is sharp, nasty argument. When you find fault in someone's position, you seem to express it in the most cruel and unpleasant way you can muster. This is not so with 99% of other discussion page posts.
In the same way that you criticize others, please take a look at your own conduct. You are clearly the common denominator. If you spoke this way to others at a cocktail party, you would be left standing alone. It would be a breach of social protocol. So why do it here?
I am writing this because a friend recently started to contribute and then left because she encountered this sort of attitude from an editor. I hate to see contributors go because of a hostile, unfriendly environment. Wikipedia is a shared space. I feel you are spreading a terrible energy. So often, your comments clearly aim to offend. They seem like personal attacks. I thought there are rules against this. I don't know what this post will achieve. So many others have said the same thing. You seem to be unstoppable. I am surprised and disappointed that Wikipedia allows this. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarc ( talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was originally thinking a collaboration through e-mail, but then realized this would be difficult, so I might just put something in my userspace/wikispace where those e-mailed can begin discussion and work towards a conclusion. Wizardman 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 27 - June 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tarc. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, my comment was kinda sarcastic. I apologize. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So I guess when Wikipedia had Queen's listed as the hospital that Obama was born in from Feb. 2008 to Oct. 2008, it was peddling in "poorly-sourced conspiracy theories", right? And that was with only one source. I have four and I'm not even saying that he was born there, I'm just saying that it has been often listed as his birthplace. That doesn't sound like a poorly sourced conspiracy theory, now does it. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of illogical sentences placed together does not explain anything. My argument and my edit is legitimate as evidenced by the fact that you have not and cannot refute it nor can anyone else. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Game, set, match. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories says this, "Questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, and other challenges to his eligibility to become President of the United States, have circulated before and after his victory in the US presidential election of 2008." This isn't a challenge to his eligibility or a theory about his citizenship. I'm just trying to reflect the truth in these articles by stating that no confirmation has been made about which hospital he was born at and that there are reliable sources that indicate both Queen's and Kapi'olani. Does that help you in your understanding? BenSpecter ( talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks? How about your reference to a tin foil hat? The easiest way to avoid a debate is to dismiss the other point of view as lacking any credibility, as you just have. And, once again, this has nothing to do with a theory about Obama's citizenship so it'd be nice if you would stop hiding behind that claim. BenSpecter ( talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue itself does not, but the consequences of any doubt about his birthplace does, and you realize where it could lead and that's why you're so desperate to prevent it. Don't vandalize my edits if you don't have the ability to debate the issue. BenSpecter ( talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! Please come and join us for the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You and I may not always have gotten along in the past, but I have to laugh at your last comments. I, too, am asking WTF? Is there a camera somewhere looking at me? Oh well. Back to it. QueenofBattle ( talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
... here. -- Rico 22:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I left a note on the case talkpage. I won't be engaging there, as it just seems like an attempt to end run consensus to me. Unitanode 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Still laughing from this one, Tarc. Tvoz/ talk 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the text of the template.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.
This means not to modify the discussion. It does not mean not to update the links from the template. Please do not revert again without further discussion. Dems on the move ( talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I promise it was an honest mistake! I simply saw that there was a great deal of news about her and was WP:BOLD to make an article. I didn't check AfD beforehand so I didn't know there had been deletion discussions. Sorry! Basket of Puppies 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Penright ( talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am gratified to see that you have been able to evalute the term "birther" in a neutral way. I feel that its use is designeed only to marginalize and draw ridicule to those who hold the beliefs. This is the antithesis of what the project is supposed to do. (I believe that he was born in Hawaii, for the record). If you would take a look at the discussion on the talk page there, I´d appreciate it-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 28 - July 2009 | |
|
Guitarherochristopher and Andrzejbanas joined the alternative music fold during July.
|
SoxBot ( talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Realize that you broke 3RR on the conspiracy article. I understand that you are attempting to discredit this particular movement but that is not the goal of wikipedia. The caption as is, is confusing to readers, clarification is helpful. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If you undo your last revert, I will not report you. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see
Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --
tariqabjotu 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Tarc ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Er, I'm not sure that this was investigated properly. Edit #1 (which was on the 8th, not the 9th as mislabeled above) was not a revert, it was a removal of text I did not think was relevant to the article topic. Saturn's edit added that Pat Boone info plus some re-wording of the Alan Keyes section; I left the Keyes, removed the Boone, and posted to the talk page about it if people wished to discuss which to date no one did, so one can conclude that that was not a controversial edit. The other 3 are reverts, yes, but of different material, as Saturn has poked and prodded to get material, widely considered here to be WP:FRINGE ("short form", ", as posted on his website", and ", posted on his website during primaries"). 3 different ways to add fringe material to an article that is subject to probation. Even if one was to overrule that and decide it was reversion of the same material, that is still only 3, as the one on the 8th had absolutely nothing to do with the others.
Decline reason:
From WP:3RR: a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I reduced your block length and you should be OK to edit now. You've been here long enough not to let yourself be drawn into a situation like that, and you should have self reverted, especially when given the chance. Be more careful. Good luck!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I edit primarily from 2 IP addresses, and was on address #2 (not the one above) when the block was reduced, and was able to edit fine. It seems that this did not lift it from address #1 (i.e. the one listed above), which is the one I am on now. Something is wrong. Tarc ( talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
re: Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories; I think you misunderstood the intent of my edit. i wasnt saying that the THEORIES were mainstream, only that they were covered in mainstreams ources. I think that while the theories themselves are outlandish and undoubtedly untrue, they are definitely covered in mainstream soruces and its not accurate to pretend like the mainstream media isnt noticing them, especially since so many of the sources criticizing them are mainstream and relaible sources. User:Smith Jones 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you erred in removing the word "mainstream" from the article. In context, saying that the theories received mainstream attention does not mean that they were ever endorsed by the mainstream, only that they were covered by the mainstream press. Saying that they received attention looks like a weasel word because it doesn't say whose attention - it's kind of awkward. Maybe there is a way to reword it, to indicate that during that period this fringe theory movement, or body of fringe ideas, was covered by the mainstream press. In a way, it's a claim of notability. What do you think? Wikidemon ( talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that by making this edit on my talk page, you are letting me know that it's OK for me to post on your talk page too. Thanks! I appreciate you doing that.
Anyway, as someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past two weeks. Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Tarc--
If you do not feel that
Grundle2600 and
ChildofMidnight are deliberately trying to bother you, then all I have to say is this: You are a better editor than I am.
--NBahn (
talk) 01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.
By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,
Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):
ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.
Discussion of this motion should be directed here.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Tarc... that was rather gutsy. [4] I've made a similar but more private and measured comment. [5] As painful as it is to be called a Nazi (I have some personal reasons here), I wonder how wise it is to call Arbcom members on their dysfunctional way of dealing with this case. Wise or not, they are the guys with the guns and badges, and as such they're entitled to some deference. Only the wisest judge is humble enough to listen to the cry of those he has sentenced, and realize when he has ruled poorly. A less wise judge would see the protest only as confirmation of his harsh judgment. Wikidemon ( talk)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 29 - August 2009 | |
|
Dylan620, SteelersFan UK06, Guitarherochristopher and Thatguykalem joined the alternative music fold during August.
|
SoxBot ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. Thanks for letting me know. Metty ( talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to revert your last ... you just took that site out of the "non-professional" section, which by your edit summary, I don't think you meant to do. :) – B.hotep • talk• 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Think that they are the same person? Soxwon ( talk) 00:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, which do you prefer? A Looking in View or Check My Brain. In my opinion, both are awesome but prefer the former.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this comment you made at WP:ANI, and I have to say I am in full agreement. Is it my imagination, or does there seem to be a significant anti-administrator movement flexing its muscles at the moment? My least favorite editor in The Universe (with whom I may not interact, per ArbCom sanction) seems to be at the epicenter, disagreeing with every conceivable admin action and generally creating drama all over the place. I realize some recent ArbCom FAIL (with respect to Law) has ruffled a few feathers, but I think this general assault upon administrators is totally unreasonable. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
They are clearly Post grunge. It says so in their Wikipedia article, so it must be true! Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't read the whole "racist allegations" and multiracial string closely enough. I am happy to revise my comments at the talk page if you would like. QueenofBattle ( talk) 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thankful to see I wasn't alone when I felt this was a horrible article. I can't believe this stayed while so many better articles are deleted.-- Windowasher ( talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, someone was not listening. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Don’t know why, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I agree that Temple of the Dog and Mad Season are grunge, that has never, never been the issue here. I disagree that they should be listed as prominent grunge acts. Do not remove this from your talk page either. It is important that you address what my argument is about so that this “edit war” can be peacefully resolved as you don’t seem to have any understanding to what my point has been all along. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
|
There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I was so amused by your Nathaniel Hawthorne reference, that I added a new "infobox" near the top of my talk page. All the best, LotLE× talk 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI Tea Party Protests header "Teabagging' changed to 'Origins'. No consensus.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am trying really, really hard to avoid WP:DRAMA, which is why I routinely closed repetitive talk page sections. Thanks again, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, a 2-day block is not a "ban". -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Jcclemens/William S. Saturn Fort Hood spat, is WP:RFAR the way to go? Grsz 11 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was wondering (because for some reason or other, I watch that page) in what sense is the documentary wrong? I'm totally ignorant of the thing. Give it to me in 100 words or less and you get a cookie! Regards, Hamster Sandwich|CANDLEBOX ROOOOLZ! ( talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT: A Birther blog -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have requested administrative action to put a stop to your constant hounding and antagonism towards me in discussion that don't involve you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:ANI, thank you for your comments. I have added a vandalism counter showing that my userpage has been vandalized 8,938 times. This is a limited edition template which I'll keep only for a short while. On ANI, you said that this is permitted even if not true. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like it should be bad-image listed as it looks more like a wang than a building. I laughed out loud when I read the ANI thread. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you around. Common sense needed in great quantities! -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: That is my statement. The form is part of the statement. The (improper) removals are also part of the statement.
(No reply necessary, but undoing your revert would be wise.)
--
Proofreader77 (
interact) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
This guy probably needs his own RFC/U, if he doesn't already have one. It's one thing to be a bit contrary, but this dude owns the word. I can't tell you how much I wish that restriction wasn't there so I could "let fly" (as Maximus would say). -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you and your buddies afraid of publishing fair and unbiased history? tuco_bad 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
This "Dylan" account creation/blocking has nothing to do with me, but is apparently someone on the same IP that I sometimes edit from as well. (workplace). Tarc ( talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. JB50000 ( talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Tarc, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A dynamic IP keeps reverting the changes and reinserting POV terms..without any interest in discussing the situation. It was doing the same to the APPO section on the Oaxaca article, until that article was semi protected. I have now asked for semi page protection on the APPO article, as well as taken it to AN/I, but no one in either place seems interested in helping stop the vandalism. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If it had been just changing the article to say he wasn't notable, it would have been one thing and I would have been among the first to educate him. But nominating an article at AfD, then going to ANI to complain--all within hours of creating your account? That didn't sit well at all. Blueboy 96 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 ( talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you have frequently edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you! -- Amandaroyal ( talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
So I can't even undo my own edits? :~) Let it stand. Maybe it is an appropriate comment on the process through the mood it conveys, even if the meaning is obscure. I will stay out of the ArbCom discussion. I find these squabbles futile and childish. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of silliness around. I will prune it back again. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I broke rule 1: Never edit after drinking too much wine. Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this crap. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to remove your comment -I got caught in an edit conflict, and for some weird reason it happened. Sorry. -- Cyclopia talk 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reformatted the article to make it so the fact that it is the 15th anniversary episode more prominent. I've also found Nielsen ratings (even though they are hosted on a fansite currently; they are apparently from this site but it is not loading properly). Would this suffice for proving that it is a notable episode out of the 700 or that have aired?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but the admins have thus far proven themselves to be unable to deal with the issues with this article. The same problem editors from 3 months ago are still around, still POV-pushing, still violating WP:NPOV, still violating WP:UNDUE, still violating WP:RS, etc. Can anything be done to address the problem? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I was a bit astonished that you feel it is open and shut that Trusilver acted against policy. Of course, you can read my views at the hearing. I'd be curious to know why you think they do not hold up. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
To me, solving F=ma is physics, but suggesting to an author that they cite Newton in this regard is not physics. My advice to Finell and Likebox to write for a broad audience and cooperate, here and here, is definitely not physics, and so Trusilver did not revert a sanction-related block, but a plain garden variety misapplied block. That action is well "within the pale". Brews ohare ( talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc: Well, it makes a difference to the sanctions applicable to Trusilver whether the block is a garden variety block or a block necessarily imposed by a sanction. That is, it isn't whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver usually has good judgment, it is a question of what rules apply. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You signed as an IP even though you were logged in. Just thought that was kind of curious. Any particular reason why? NW ( Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=348470561 Shows you are a sock. DD2K said that one sock used "nice" and that's the same way you talk. Please stop sockpuppetry. Thank you. A UT professor ( talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc/Archive1: 2009-2010 ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's probably not helpful to rattle hir cage. Now, if you want to start an over/under pool for when the socking starts... PhGustaf ( talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made some good suggestions about fixing up the article, such as the foreign policy section. As you can see, it neither says that Obama is the greatest man to live on Earth nor does it say that he is a bad man. It's just an improvement over the current prose. Don't start knee jerk reverting but see if you can think of improvements, such as my foreign policy suggestions. Judith Merrick ( talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident concerning a proposal to move the article to a neutral compromise title. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Requested move. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, would you consider perhaps changing the opening sentence of this statement to third person? It probably wasn't intended quite as direct as it reads (one of those situations where phrasing the thought as "anyone can...." looks so much better than "you could..."). Best wishes, Durova 412 05:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you are adamant that you are not part of the group that supports Brews ohare--- and you are right, you aren't. But having gotten a taste of the type of harassment that gets dished out to those that are, perhaps you are willing to join?
I have given up on Wikipedia, but I went to a NYC meetup, and met some nice people who reminded me why I actually was optimistic about this project to begin with. The nice people are the great majority--- there is no need to block or ban non-rule-breaking people like Brews. Anyway, think about it, and no need to respond. Likebox ( talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this edit, while an astute observation, was placed in the "Users who endorse this summary" section...while not exactly endorsing that summary.
If you could move your comment to a new section on the RfC's talk page, that seems to be more than appropriate. Thanks much! 207.237.230.164 ( talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison ( talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, I put a note on Chris carroll us's talk page just now, urging him to discuss this Hawaii birth certificate thing on the article's talk page rather than trying to wage an edit war. I hope he will accept this suggestion, since I would genuinely like to hear whatever he has to say and have it properly considered for whatever it might be worth — something which is unlikely to happen if his dueling edits cause him to get article-banned or blocked entirely. Richwales ( talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tarc, about the IP that keeps changing the name of Obama's birth certificate. I was about to ask for help at ANI, but have to get read for the Red Wing game tonight. So let me give you some things I noticed about this issue. First, the three sources( 1, 2, 3) that link to the image all refer to the document as Obama's birth certificate. This issue was settled many times before, and the result has always been to refer to the birth certificate as Obama's birth certificate( one such consensus is in archive 10). Hawaiian law, as well as Federal law, refers to the document as Obama's birth certificate and should be considered for all purposes the original. And lastly, the IP is socking with at least one more account. See this edit, and the edit histories for both accounts Ip - TruthfulPerson. It's obvious the editor is using the Ip as an edit warrior account, and at least the one registered account to include sneaky vandalism into Obama related articles. That's all for now. If nothing else, this info is here now. DD2K ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tarc, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shiva Boloorian has been removed. It was removed by Sodabottle with the following edit summary '(contesting prod, there is coverage in farsi language media, because of the large amount of films/tv shows, would like this to go do AfD before being deleted)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sodabottle before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This guy's obviously a troll. He's reverted your revert on the Barack Obama Talk page. Woogee ( talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The talk page says things are archived in 14 days but the bot has gone crazy and archived stuff in 10.
You said not to un-archive stuff so I have listen to you. I have re-archived the stuff that I did not make any comment on. The sections that are under 14 days old that I have commented on remains. Thanks.
I don't want to argue, just voice my opinion on improving articles. Willie Sutton Bank President ( talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You said that I should not edit the comments of others. The reason to the edit was because TreasuryTag moved my defence to his ad hominem to the talk page, on the basis that it is not relevant to the article (to which I agree). However, he kept his ad hominem on the page which I subsequently moved too. However, someone had written a two part comment, the first agreeing with the ad hominem, the second relevant to the article. I split the comment into the two, one of which I moved, with the ad hominem, to the talk page, the other relevant part preserved on the page. You also stated that the article was about one event. This is clearly not the case as the main article states two events, almost half a year apart. -- A930913 ( talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment at WP:ANI. Please see discussion about the image at Talk:Don Murphy. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied at my talkpage. - Regards, Mailer Diablo 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc!
Please add the following to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grundle2600#Suspected_sockpuppets:
Thank you.
I would have done it myself, except the page is protected and I am unable to edit it.
Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to do the honours here, too? Radiopathy •talk• 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That is odd, any idea how that link is mangled? I cliekd on the redlink in this edit summary, which is where the "usr" comes from. I think you moved my comment to the wrong IP though, as the guy I was trying to get to is 208.114.71.183, but you put it at User talk:208.117.33.183. Also interesting but probably unrelated to any of this, is that even though that 208.117.33.183 talk page has an old warning on it, that actual IP is no longer in whois or geolocate. Tarc ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
He should be blocked for ever, and good riddance to him. There is no value to the project in his continued presence at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The only irony is that he has been unblocked at all. As for your suggestion of stepping back and dropping the stick... As regards this user if I see his name continuing to edit I will pick up the stick in readiness. There is imo no room for such personal comments and you may think it is fine to say such things but I never will. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 06:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I followed the link to the Ultraviolence article over from the MfD on RAN's userspace article. I've never heard of them, but with 4 albums on Earache Records, Ultraviolence seems notable under WP:MUSIC criteria #5. Can I move it back into article space? Or do you want to? Or is there some reason you haven't already? Yilloslime T C 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well played my man, well played...-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's do an AFD. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 06:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Your post on AN/I, in which you mentioned me was extremely unhelpful, biased and unfair. I suggest before you claim something like that ever again to compare my contributions to yours own for example, how many articles on different topics I created, and how many did you, how many images I have uploaded and how many did you, how many times I commented on AN/I threads that do not concern me personally and how many did you. Please stop making your biased and unfair insinuations. If you are to respond, and I am not really interested in your response, please respond here. I would not like to see you at my talk page.Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I see I am the second person within three days to complain about your behaviour in this respect. Your assumptions (indeed your link) to some topic ban need to be seriously questioned. It was not a page ban, but merely a restriction on editing MoS pages WRT date unlinking/linking. It has absolutely nothing to do with the current issue, and you show yourself to be biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters. You have misled others on the page. I resent it. Tony (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Tarc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sublime Self-Titled.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You realize, don't you, that you are just begging for a response in edit summary "EAT ME"! :)-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the socks you just cited are all me.
I admire your observations regarding my choices of usernames.
I also admire your previous explanation of my User:G-MMDC account. You were the only one to pick up on that, while everyone else missed it.
For the record, User:Yohann4, which has been suspected of being me, is not me. I readily admit that all the others are me, but User:Yohann4 is not me, and I do not like getting the credit for someone else's work.
That being said, I find it reprehensible that you and the others are still removing notable, well sourced info, just because that info happens to be critical of Obama. I have never, ever erased any notable, well sourced material from any article. Articles should cite the good and bad things about their subjects.
Spirobranchus giganteus ( talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable. You made me feel a bit so. Wikipedia should strive to be a happy and cooperative place.
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You caught the "trollz and lulz" post on Jimbo's talk page but you missed this. Considering both his edits I thought a final warning was warranted. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, user is requesting notification of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_concerning_Tarc, excuse me if you have seen it, regards Off2riorob ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Tarc, While I generally disagree with you and so have some conflict that way, I'm finding your comments in DrVs recently to be fairly uncivil. Please consider toning it down a notch or two. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Haia, Tarc. Re Gwyn Elfyn (and your advocacy for his demotion), you wrote:
>>Not that it matters much anyway, since barring a miraculous influx of well-reasoned keep opinions, this is going to be merged, but...actually, yes, you are. We have a widely-accepted guideline for this type of situation. This particular article fails all 3, yet you feel it should be kept anyways on the basis of "10th longest-serving actor" being notable.<<
Well, I think that it matters not "on the basis of '10th longest-serving actor'" but on the basis that I live in Wales and I can tell you that GE is a pretty damned notable actor here! However, I suppose I must recognize that trying to combat Wp-Americanocentrism is always going to result in mostly lost skirmishes. Doesn't mean though that the battle won't continue! Do have to wonder, all the same, about the apparent, strange mean-mindedness of certain Wp "vigilantes"... -- Picapica ( talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
While I am honored to be your brother in thuggery, you should probably be aware that you have a fan. MastCell Talk 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you meant "trivial" in this edit.— Kww( talk) 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The external link to Political Machine defaults to their main page now for some reason. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium ( talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Freakshownerd is not me.
Also, User:Yohann4, which is suspected of being me, is not me.
I hate current music - totally hate it. But I absolutely love the new album Release Me by The Like. It's fun, cheesy, and retro. They don't make music like this anymore - except now they do!
72.95.242.173 ( talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well this is interesting. This User contributions shows that I now have the same dynamic IP address that I had a month ago. Please don't revert the edits that I made a while ago to Loverboy, as they are non-political and non-controversial. The old edit to Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is also me. That being said, the edits to Socialized medicine and Health maintenance organization from two years ago are not me. 72.95.242.173 ( talk) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
According to this stop your uncivil rant.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded to you here. Thanks for your comment. Swliv ( talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Again I've responded to you there, puzzled this time. Swliv ( talk) 18:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: your removal of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_eulogy_for_the_Wikipedia_that_is_no_more. My posting there is directly relevant to the thread in which it is contained. PLENTY of other people have posted similar comments throughout the thread. If you're going to delete my post, at least have the common decency to cleanse the entire thread of comments regarding protection in abstract. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Stevertigo was -really- claiming entitlement to wider latitude than others. I saw remarks like "you're using one of my shortcuts, BTW" as rhetorical flourishes not intended to convey anything of real weight. At least I hope Stevertigo is not deluded enough to have meant anything of substance by that remark. Anything is possible, though, I suppose. 67.122.209.115 ( talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I filed one of these after providing summary discussion on the talk page, and a description of the dispute. --Regards -- KeptSouth ( talk) 11:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder where the " African Safari" is? -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I declined your speedies on the Palestine articles--see [6] for the rationale. I'm sure you disagree, so it can be discussed either at AfD or at ani. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There is some odd editing going on in a few articles, which I've tried to capture in an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Curvesall. Nothing seems to be happening there, so do you have any suggestions on what course to take, specifically, is this is better handled in an ANI? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey just giving a headsup that I started a conversation on the talk page pertaining to splitting up the albums. My preference is to split things, but I wasn't about to cause a ruckus if there was a strong consensus to keep things as is... although it would be "nice" to keep Nirvana looking like all of the other discographies in Wikipedia. Comment there... I didn't get much of a response before, perhaps a different consensus could be reached? - eo ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You said, "we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now."
No, I haven't run out of ideas for usernames. The reason that I've been using IPs is because recently, every time I had a user name that was at least 4 days old (the minimal requirement for editing semi-protected articles) the account had already been blocked before I ever got a chance to use it. It happened with about 15 or so accounts. I think someone wrote a script to block them before I get a chance to use them. 71.182.212.229 ( talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Gerardo Puisseaux, 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! VER Tott 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
First, there's a difference between a merge and a delete, and you are simply deleting. Second, you're well aware there is only a week before the election and there's no compelling reason to rush through articles at this point in time, other than rabid partisanship. If the issues couldn't be resolved a month ago, they can wait one more week. There's simply not time to do proper merges at this point, and I am not going to let you make Wikipedia yet more fodder for bloggers claiming we don't play fair. Flatterworld ( talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the ANI situation and the associated AfDs have been an extremely messy affair and frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations, but I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed. I'm going to be avoiding this area now, since it seems to involve more teeth and nails than words, now.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I collapsed it because the discussion about a userfied version of the article is tangential to the DRV. We are merely trying to determine of the deletion discussion in April 2009 was closed properly, reflecting consensus of that discussion. Whether she is notable or not is a separate issue and not part of DRV. Nevertheless, if you still feel differently, please feel free to uncollapse again; I'm not edit-warring about it. It clouds the issue and the purpose of DRV, but if you feel differently, that's OK with me too. Frank | talk 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I guess the community disagrees with me, thus I will apologize. I do think your timing and approach could have been better. If you had waited an hour or two to let the discussion at ANI die down, nobody would have questioned your actions. It was coming and usurping the discussion by sending articles to AFD that has people questioning your actions. (nobody challenges OrangeMike's doing the exact same thing) Anyways, I still think it does no harm to wait a week, but it may do harm to rush the AFD's (would you want a big AFD tag on your article questioning your notability the week before an election?) But that is neither here nor there. Again, my apologies.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make the edit to add the name, but Angie Simms is the "grandchild" in the "Really Bad Grandpa" skit. Nocarsgo ( talk) 16:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is now archived, but to clarify after reading your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 2, I have pretty thick skin; I don't take any personal offense with the template, I simply feel that the wording is such that it may well simply spark further issues in controversial threads, especially if misused. I've withdrawn the nomination though since several users clearly find it useful and User:Thesevenseas made a valid point that it may actually have the opposite effect to what I feared; I'll hold my cynicism until there are actual issues with its usage. Just felt I should explain my view as you appeared to be getting the wrong idea about my comments on the template. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"I don't know why the article is so important to her, but it must be very powerful or she wouldn't want to trash it so badly." (Glinda to Dorothy, paraphrased) Moore's still the 2010 nominee, and will always have that 'title'. I've seen boxes at the end of similar articles showing previous, current and subsequent nominees. Anyway, I restored the infobox and updated the rest of the article. We really do need better guidelines, starting with a full discussion now that the election's over. Flatterworld ( talk) 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the details were matching up though. He clearly didn't write the song in '56, so even if he did record a song by that name the article as it stood was still a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you were involved in a discussion of that source at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. It has been now used as a source at Nazism to state some facts about al-Husayni. For now, I've just attributed them. Note that the editor who introduced the book as source at Nazism, User:WookieInHeat, is currently blocked for an unrelated incident (but still in the same IP area), so he cannot respond until tomorrow or so. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You may want to reconsider your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Pakistan, since User:CMBJ has made significant improvements to the article. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you're Izzy, maybe you can tell me what this "guise of a different name" is, that's so coyly alluded to in the article but not actually specified. :) — chaos5023 ( talk) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest toning "your sense of proportion is...poop, shall we say mildly" down quite a bit next time you get the urge to leave an edit summary like that. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc,
I don't want to buy into the editing disagreement that's happening with Anne Rice, but my reading of the last paragraphs of Anne Rice#Exit from organized religion indicates to me that she still considers herself a Christian, just not a member of a formal church. The relevant page on her website Anne's Profession of Faith (Already cited in the article) includes the text "I am a believer in every word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Regards Kiore ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
whats the deal with all these porn bios? half of them looked likt they are entirely made up, and when you try to look through their sources most of them are blogs and industry websites -- not exacly WP:RSs for any other subject. i think that you are right to target some of these with WP:AFD as they dont seem to even attempt to meet any acceptable threshold of notability and contain numerous sources that would not pass muster in any other article series. User:Smith Jones 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. SnottyWong confess 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, man, I received your email to come on here. I don't really understand what you want me to do about that RFCU thing though. I can look into it but I can't really make promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomtube ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I get around... I bet is on a disgruntled #3 or #4 this time around though. Tarc ( talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me of where that comes this rule?. Is to learn more. Greetings. JGabriel ar ( talk) 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The same types of sources that you have been told over and over and over and (do we sense a pattern?) over again are not sufficient for establishing notability. Seriously, how many AfDs have we been through now where your links to toy guides and fan forums have been utterly rejected by the Wikipedia community?
Perhaps if one can find a list of times that Ignash's sources have been rejected, we can open a Request for comment. Perhaps I should ask on the Transformers WikiProject talk page? NotARealWord ( talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make edit summaries [7] that require me to revdelete them. Somebody who is religious who sees that may take it as a very severe insult. There is no need. Okay, thanks. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved your reply to me to the place I think you meant it to be in the DrV on Scientology deaths. Feel free to move it back if I messed with your original intent. Hobit ( talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 21 - December 2008 | |
|
Papa November and S. Dean Jameson joined the alternative music fold during December.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 17:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had a more thorough look at the case you raised on my talk page, and I agree with your conclusions. I've added some additional evidence. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, hi, I looked at your recent deletion here: [1] You raised a valid point in the edit summary, but just because one source may be questionable, does not mean that an entire section should be deleted. Some of the sources in that paragraph looked fine. So instead of doing wholesale deletion of well-sourced information, could you perhaps try editing the section to try and provide a compromise version? -- El on ka 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I found your comment 'trivial junk' to be blunt and offensive. Please be more polite.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Captain-tucker (
talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Regarding these comments you made on the Talk:Muhammad page:
It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it.
This is a remarkable show of bad faith. I would suggest you reconsider your words here; such blanket prejudgments make it impossible to collaborate. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 23 - February 2009 | |
|
MikeGruz and Blackadam2 joined the alternative music fold during February.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes he was knighted, read the article. Your scarcasm shows a lack of profesionalism. I'd appriciate it if you read the article. If you still don't believe me, I would at least like the other part of my post to be left up, as it is clearly stated in the Roling Stone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieG2448 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tarc. I see that you have uploaded this image, but the only article that used it was turned into a redirect through a deletion discussion, and so the image is not currently being used. I'm not the one who tagged the image for deletion, I believe a bot did, but it will be deleted on March 8, 2009 as it is orphaned non-free content.-- Disturbed Nerd 999 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
How long do you think the WND idiots will stick around? I'm hoping to get back to editing the article. Btw, I left you a response w/reference to Obama and Wright. Soxwon ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am not going to respond your disrespect anymore. I simply created a discussion thread about the problems that are systemic that I saw. That is all. You seem to be deeply scared or intimidated by my point and are thus waging some strange "obamamania" war on me that I simply do not get. If you wanted to prove your "fascist" whatever idea that you said I thought then simply continue your feud with me. You are the one opposing the Jimbo guidelines not I. I don't think I have anything else to say to you. Leave my discussions alone and stop violating your tools. JohnHistory (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:History_of_Terrorism if you want to. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on AN/I. [2] Please note that the substantive discussion of this matter was moved to WP:BLP/N after three of the articles in question were protected. I just came back to report that the editor responsible for it was continuing to edit war on a fourth article. Cheers, Wikidemon ( talk) 14:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick point I wanted to raise, you write in your edit summary that if the crap isn't suitable for an article, it isn't suitable for inclusion. That isn't exactly true. The article about Obama's teleprompter usage was rightly deleted as a stand-alone, POVFork. As a stand-alone article, there were many, many issues. However, that does not mean that a line or a section in a broader article touching on the same material would automatically be excluded. We do not want articles that serve as content forks and are solely used to document criticism, praise, etc. However, we don't exclude criticism, praise, etc. just because it would be unfit for a separate article. Take for instance John McCain's "100 years" comment. Would it be suitable to include that as a separate article, of course not. But it is mentioned or discussed in the United States presidential election, 2008, Mother Jones (magazine), Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, and Not Alex articles (some of which I'm sure you are aware of, because of your good work on the US political articles). So just because it isn't right for one place doesn't mean it's not right for another. If you respond, please keep it here to not fragment the discussion. Or delete this, either way is fine. :-) Mahalo, Tarc. -- Ali'i 15:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I have a dispute with you before going forward with it. I believe you abused your tools when you prevented me from writing on my own talk page and made it impossible to appeal my block. I think your actions were based on a desire to censor me inappropriately. I have observed you also going after other people you disagree with in a similarly unprofessional manner. You may be well entrenched here but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that I think you are being abusive and that I am going to follow up on it when I have the time. JohnHistory ( talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
On your front page. I didn't realize I was editting alongside a celebrity. Soxwon ( talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 24 - March 2009 | |
|
LizParker and Cavie78 joined the alternative music fold during March.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, you suggested the discussion at an editor's talk page rather than at the article's talk page, so here we go (or am I not allowed to post on your talk page? Kidding, just a little joke!). Seriously, I think you smell something fishy with the new user "Hawaii57". But, what if they are just a new user unfamiliar with the Wiki way of doing things, and are making an honest effort to improve the article (from their inexperienced perspective)? It that possible in your view? Plausible? If not plausible, how does that jive with AGF? The operative point is that I recognize there is a group of editors sympathetic to the president, and that's OK. Hell, there's a group of editors bent on his failure. But, if there is no way for anyone new to make suggestions to improve the article, why not just archive the whole damnned thing? Zip it up, assuming that everything that should be said about Obama has been said. No other views welcome, unless they meet with approval from the "experience editors." Is that how you wanted to edit when you first started at Wikipedia? I don't know about you, but it kinda reminds me of a certain totalitarian regime where asking questions without the fear of censorship was verbotten. I am not suggesting that is the goal of you and others, merely that there is a perception of that being the goal from those of us who have a differing viewpoint. It doesn't make you right or me wrong. It doesn't make me bad or you good. It just makes us different. So, will you help? Turn a new leaf? I bring it to you here so as to not appear to be grandstanding (which was not my intention). I have seen hatred and the horrific things that mankind can do to each other; I fight that kind of hostility wherever I can. Am I perfect, hell no. But, it is certainly worth a shot to at least try to be civil to each other and not automatically assume the worst. If every new edior that asks a question (well intentioned or not) is shot on the spot for daring to cross the status quo, then Wikipedia as a project will fail. As Reagan was quoted as saying, "Trust, but verify." Now, I have probably mused too much, so I'll leave it to you. QueenofBattle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
← FWIW, I'm with you on this, Tarc. It's all just too familiar. Tvoz/ talk 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right about that. I rarely edit in the template namespace. Would you please add the link to relevant articles instead, see that the page is created before Obama's first budget? I hope you can realise where I'm coming from. Ottre 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already noted the aforementioned irony in a diff in my "response to 'evidence'". -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. May I respectfully suggest that you give this editor a little room, and also an extra dose of respect and courtesy? I know you believe some of his (her?) edits to be unhelpful and I won't disagree. But I think harshness or confrontation is likely to hurt things on another front, which is to encourage the editor to develop positive feelings for fellow Wikipedians and stop perceiving of others as being out to get them. There is an admin, Bigtimepeace, actively watching over this now. I don't expect an admin to resolve every last minor detail. They will probably let the small stuff pass and concentrate on the main things. Bigtimepeace has already noted that some of your stronger comments were unduly harsh. It probably works at cross purposes for others to get in the way at this point. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi: Which part of my edit summary do you disagree with? You are aware that you are a) misrepresenting WP:TERRORIST as a policy, b) restoring a box which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and WP:TALK since it misuses a guideline to forclose discussion relevant to the article's quality, c) restoring a box which is not templated, and hence impossible to maintain, and thus potentially misleading in the future, are you not? I undid one of your changes, will not undo others until you reply, or a suitable amount of time elapses. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm firmly convinced I'm in the right about this one. Ray Talk 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new template called {{ terrorist}} that could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
After several months, he's back to switching the Genre on every foo fighters-related article to alt rock. He's editing primarily from 67.242.56.62. Somehow, my petition for a ban was denied. -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hardly need to tell you to be careful Tarc. There are some odd things, over several pages, cropping up in succession, at a crucial moment. Provocative, ill-formed, etc. One can hazard a couple of provisory readings of these things, what the point of it might be, if this is not just chance. My reading is, get detached, withdraw, observe the end result. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was noted of a sourcing issue between you and ChildofMidnight. To prevent an edit war, I made a note on the talk page for you two to talk it over there. Wizardman 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked you to withdraw a personal attack from Jimmy Wales talk page, please do so and desist from attacking other editors with whom you disagree in such an aggressive fashion in future. There simply are no excuses for such atmosphere poisoning. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed whilst you left a comment here...you didn't actually vote keep or delete. would you like to? thanks LibStar ( talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I referred to one of your comments in regard to an ANI about another user. LibStar ( talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 26 - May 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain this, User:SqueakBox/wikipedia founder, within the contexxt of me allegedly hounding QuackGuru. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused as to this edit, as it doesn't seem to fit with the logic of your edit summary. You reinserted Palin's interpretation and included other unnecessary details. Was it in error? -- ZimZalaBim talk 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, are you an Obama supporter? If so, then I think you should recuse yourself from being an administrator on all Obama related articles. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.
The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why mentioning Obama's race as "African American" is not racist, while mentioning the race of his mother is? It seems to be a total hypocrisy. In fact it in not accurate without mentioning his mother, instead it promotes a fiction that is easily disproved, and is more in line with political propaganda than real information. Robtmorris ( talk) 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Several months ago you commented on an edit I made. I found it offensive. I kindly suggested that you be more polite to others. I unwatched your discussion page trusting that you would behave better. Well, I have just checked back.
You are a unique Wikipedian and so are your discussion page posts. Half of the content is sharp, nasty argument. When you find fault in someone's position, you seem to express it in the most cruel and unpleasant way you can muster. This is not so with 99% of other discussion page posts.
In the same way that you criticize others, please take a look at your own conduct. You are clearly the common denominator. If you spoke this way to others at a cocktail party, you would be left standing alone. It would be a breach of social protocol. So why do it here?
I am writing this because a friend recently started to contribute and then left because she encountered this sort of attitude from an editor. I hate to see contributors go because of a hostile, unfriendly environment. Wikipedia is a shared space. I feel you are spreading a terrible energy. So often, your comments clearly aim to offend. They seem like personal attacks. I thought there are rules against this. I don't know what this post will achieve. So many others have said the same thing. You seem to be unstoppable. I am surprised and disappointed that Wikipedia allows this. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Tarc ( talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was originally thinking a collaboration through e-mail, but then realized this would be difficult, so I might just put something in my userspace/wikispace where those e-mailed can begin discussion and work towards a conclusion. Wizardman 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 27 - June 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot ( talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tarc. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre ( talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, my comment was kinda sarcastic. I apologize. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So I guess when Wikipedia had Queen's listed as the hospital that Obama was born in from Feb. 2008 to Oct. 2008, it was peddling in "poorly-sourced conspiracy theories", right? And that was with only one source. I have four and I'm not even saying that he was born there, I'm just saying that it has been often listed as his birthplace. That doesn't sound like a poorly sourced conspiracy theory, now does it. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of illogical sentences placed together does not explain anything. My argument and my edit is legitimate as evidenced by the fact that you have not and cannot refute it nor can anyone else. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Game, set, match. BenSpecter ( talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories says this, "Questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, and other challenges to his eligibility to become President of the United States, have circulated before and after his victory in the US presidential election of 2008." This isn't a challenge to his eligibility or a theory about his citizenship. I'm just trying to reflect the truth in these articles by stating that no confirmation has been made about which hospital he was born at and that there are reliable sources that indicate both Queen's and Kapi'olani. Does that help you in your understanding? BenSpecter ( talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks? How about your reference to a tin foil hat? The easiest way to avoid a debate is to dismiss the other point of view as lacking any credibility, as you just have. And, once again, this has nothing to do with a theory about Obama's citizenship so it'd be nice if you would stop hiding behind that claim. BenSpecter ( talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue itself does not, but the consequences of any doubt about his birthplace does, and you realize where it could lead and that's why you're so desperate to prevent it. Don't vandalize my edits if you don't have the ability to debate the issue. BenSpecter ( talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! Please come and join us for the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You and I may not always have gotten along in the past, but I have to laugh at your last comments. I, too, am asking WTF? Is there a camera somewhere looking at me? Oh well. Back to it. QueenofBattle ( talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
... here. -- Rico 22:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I left a note on the case talkpage. I won't be engaging there, as it just seems like an attempt to end run consensus to me. Unitanode 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Still laughing from this one, Tarc. Tvoz/ talk 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the text of the template.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.
This means not to modify the discussion. It does not mean not to update the links from the template. Please do not revert again without further discussion. Dems on the move ( talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I promise it was an honest mistake! I simply saw that there was a great deal of news about her and was WP:BOLD to make an article. I didn't check AfD beforehand so I didn't know there had been deletion discussions. Sorry! Basket of Puppies 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Penright ( talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am gratified to see that you have been able to evalute the term "birther" in a neutral way. I feel that its use is designeed only to marginalize and draw ridicule to those who hold the beliefs. This is the antithesis of what the project is supposed to do. (I believe that he was born in Hawaii, for the record). If you would take a look at the discussion on the talk page there, I´d appreciate it-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 28 - July 2009 | |
|
Guitarherochristopher and Andrzejbanas joined the alternative music fold during July.
|
SoxBot ( talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Realize that you broke 3RR on the conspiracy article. I understand that you are attempting to discredit this particular movement but that is not the goal of wikipedia. The caption as is, is confusing to readers, clarification is helpful. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If you undo your last revert, I will not report you. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see
Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --
tariqabjotu 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Tarc ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Er, I'm not sure that this was investigated properly. Edit #1 (which was on the 8th, not the 9th as mislabeled above) was not a revert, it was a removal of text I did not think was relevant to the article topic. Saturn's edit added that Pat Boone info plus some re-wording of the Alan Keyes section; I left the Keyes, removed the Boone, and posted to the talk page about it if people wished to discuss which to date no one did, so one can conclude that that was not a controversial edit. The other 3 are reverts, yes, but of different material, as Saturn has poked and prodded to get material, widely considered here to be WP:FRINGE ("short form", ", as posted on his website", and ", posted on his website during primaries"). 3 different ways to add fringe material to an article that is subject to probation. Even if one was to overrule that and decide it was reversion of the same material, that is still only 3, as the one on the 8th had absolutely nothing to do with the others.
Decline reason:
From WP:3RR: a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I reduced your block length and you should be OK to edit now. You've been here long enough not to let yourself be drawn into a situation like that, and you should have self reverted, especially when given the chance. Be more careful. Good luck!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I edit primarily from 2 IP addresses, and was on address #2 (not the one above) when the block was reduced, and was able to edit fine. It seems that this did not lift it from address #1 (i.e. the one listed above), which is the one I am on now. Something is wrong. Tarc ( talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
re: Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories; I think you misunderstood the intent of my edit. i wasnt saying that the THEORIES were mainstream, only that they were covered in mainstreams ources. I think that while the theories themselves are outlandish and undoubtedly untrue, they are definitely covered in mainstream soruces and its not accurate to pretend like the mainstream media isnt noticing them, especially since so many of the sources criticizing them are mainstream and relaible sources. User:Smith Jones 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you erred in removing the word "mainstream" from the article. In context, saying that the theories received mainstream attention does not mean that they were ever endorsed by the mainstream, only that they were covered by the mainstream press. Saying that they received attention looks like a weasel word because it doesn't say whose attention - it's kind of awkward. Maybe there is a way to reword it, to indicate that during that period this fringe theory movement, or body of fringe ideas, was covered by the mainstream press. In a way, it's a claim of notability. What do you think? Wikidemon ( talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that by making this edit on my talk page, you are letting me know that it's OK for me to post on your talk page too. Thanks! I appreciate you doing that.
Anyway, as someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past two weeks. Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Tarc--
If you do not feel that
Grundle2600 and
ChildofMidnight are deliberately trying to bother you, then all I have to say is this: You are a better editor than I am.
--NBahn (
talk) 01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.
By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,
Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):
ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.
Discussion of this motion should be directed here.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Tarc... that was rather gutsy. [4] I've made a similar but more private and measured comment. [5] As painful as it is to be called a Nazi (I have some personal reasons here), I wonder how wise it is to call Arbcom members on their dysfunctional way of dealing with this case. Wise or not, they are the guys with the guns and badges, and as such they're entitled to some deference. Only the wisest judge is humble enough to listen to the cry of those he has sentenced, and realize when he has ruled poorly. A less wise judge would see the protest only as confirmation of his harsh judgment. Wikidemon ( talk)
The
Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 29 - August 2009 | |
|
Dylan620, SteelersFan UK06, Guitarherochristopher and Thatguykalem joined the alternative music fold during August.
|
SoxBot ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. Thanks for letting me know. Metty ( talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to revert your last ... you just took that site out of the "non-professional" section, which by your edit summary, I don't think you meant to do. :) – B.hotep • talk• 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Think that they are the same person? Soxwon ( talk) 00:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, which do you prefer? A Looking in View or Check My Brain. In my opinion, both are awesome but prefer the former.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this comment you made at WP:ANI, and I have to say I am in full agreement. Is it my imagination, or does there seem to be a significant anti-administrator movement flexing its muscles at the moment? My least favorite editor in The Universe (with whom I may not interact, per ArbCom sanction) seems to be at the epicenter, disagreeing with every conceivable admin action and generally creating drama all over the place. I realize some recent ArbCom FAIL (with respect to Law) has ruffled a few feathers, but I think this general assault upon administrators is totally unreasonable. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
They are clearly Post grunge. It says so in their Wikipedia article, so it must be true! Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't read the whole "racist allegations" and multiracial string closely enough. I am happy to revise my comments at the talk page if you would like. QueenofBattle ( talk) 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thankful to see I wasn't alone when I felt this was a horrible article. I can't believe this stayed while so many better articles are deleted.-- Windowasher ( talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, someone was not listening. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Don’t know why, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I agree that Temple of the Dog and Mad Season are grunge, that has never, never been the issue here. I disagree that they should be listed as prominent grunge acts. Do not remove this from your talk page either. It is important that you address what my argument is about so that this “edit war” can be peacefully resolved as you don’t seem to have any understanding to what my point has been all along. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
|
There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I was so amused by your Nathaniel Hawthorne reference, that I added a new "infobox" near the top of my talk page. All the best, LotLE× talk 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI Tea Party Protests header "Teabagging' changed to 'Origins'. No consensus.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am trying really, really hard to avoid WP:DRAMA, which is why I routinely closed repetitive talk page sections. Thanks again, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, a 2-day block is not a "ban". -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Jcclemens/William S. Saturn Fort Hood spat, is WP:RFAR the way to go? Grsz 11 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was wondering (because for some reason or other, I watch that page) in what sense is the documentary wrong? I'm totally ignorant of the thing. Give it to me in 100 words or less and you get a cookie! Regards, Hamster Sandwich|CANDLEBOX ROOOOLZ! ( talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT: A Birther blog -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have requested administrative action to put a stop to your constant hounding and antagonism towards me in discussion that don't involve you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:ANI, thank you for your comments. I have added a vandalism counter showing that my userpage has been vandalized 8,938 times. This is a limited edition template which I'll keep only for a short while. On ANI, you said that this is permitted even if not true. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like it should be bad-image listed as it looks more like a wang than a building. I laughed out loud when I read the ANI thread. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you around. Common sense needed in great quantities! -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: That is my statement. The form is part of the statement. The (improper) removals are also part of the statement.
(No reply necessary, but undoing your revert would be wise.)
--
Proofreader77 (
interact) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
This guy probably needs his own RFC/U, if he doesn't already have one. It's one thing to be a bit contrary, but this dude owns the word. I can't tell you how much I wish that restriction wasn't there so I could "let fly" (as Maximus would say). -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you and your buddies afraid of publishing fair and unbiased history? tuco_bad 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
This "Dylan" account creation/blocking has nothing to do with me, but is apparently someone on the same IP that I sometimes edit from as well. (workplace). Tarc ( talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. JB50000 ( talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Tarc, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A dynamic IP keeps reverting the changes and reinserting POV terms..without any interest in discussing the situation. It was doing the same to the APPO section on the Oaxaca article, until that article was semi protected. I have now asked for semi page protection on the APPO article, as well as taken it to AN/I, but no one in either place seems interested in helping stop the vandalism. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If it had been just changing the article to say he wasn't notable, it would have been one thing and I would have been among the first to educate him. But nominating an article at AfD, then going to ANI to complain--all within hours of creating your account? That didn't sit well at all. Blueboy 96 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 ( talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you have frequently edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you! -- Amandaroyal ( talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
So I can't even undo my own edits? :~) Let it stand. Maybe it is an appropriate comment on the process through the mood it conveys, even if the meaning is obscure. I will stay out of the ArbCom discussion. I find these squabbles futile and childish. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of silliness around. I will prune it back again. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I broke rule 1: Never edit after drinking too much wine. Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this crap. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to remove your comment -I got caught in an edit conflict, and for some weird reason it happened. Sorry. -- Cyclopia talk 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reformatted the article to make it so the fact that it is the 15th anniversary episode more prominent. I've also found Nielsen ratings (even though they are hosted on a fansite currently; they are apparently from this site but it is not loading properly). Would this suffice for proving that it is a notable episode out of the 700 or that have aired?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but the admins have thus far proven themselves to be unable to deal with the issues with this article. The same problem editors from 3 months ago are still around, still POV-pushing, still violating WP:NPOV, still violating WP:UNDUE, still violating WP:RS, etc. Can anything be done to address the problem? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I was a bit astonished that you feel it is open and shut that Trusilver acted against policy. Of course, you can read my views at the hearing. I'd be curious to know why you think they do not hold up. Brews ohare ( talk) 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
To me, solving F=ma is physics, but suggesting to an author that they cite Newton in this regard is not physics. My advice to Finell and Likebox to write for a broad audience and cooperate, here and here, is definitely not physics, and so Trusilver did not revert a sanction-related block, but a plain garden variety misapplied block. That action is well "within the pale". Brews ohare ( talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc: Well, it makes a difference to the sanctions applicable to Trusilver whether the block is a garden variety block or a block necessarily imposed by a sanction. That is, it isn't whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver usually has good judgment, it is a question of what rules apply. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You signed as an IP even though you were logged in. Just thought that was kind of curious. Any particular reason why? NW ( Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=348470561 Shows you are a sock. DD2K said that one sock used "nice" and that's the same way you talk. Please stop sockpuppetry. Thank you. A UT professor ( talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc/Archive1: 2009-2010 ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's probably not helpful to rattle hir cage. Now, if you want to start an over/under pool for when the socking starts... PhGustaf ( talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made some good suggestions about fixing up the article, such as the foreign policy section. As you can see, it neither says that Obama is the greatest man to live on Earth nor does it say that he is a bad man. It's just an improvement over the current prose. Don't start knee jerk reverting but see if you can think of improvements, such as my foreign policy suggestions. Judith Merrick ( talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You commented earlier on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident concerning a proposal to move the article to a neutral compromise title. A formal move request has now been filed. Please feel free to add your view to the discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Requested move. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, would you consider perhaps changing the opening sentence of this statement to third person? It probably wasn't intended quite as direct as it reads (one of those situations where phrasing the thought as "anyone can...." looks so much better than "you could..."). Best wishes, Durova 412 05:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you are adamant that you are not part of the group that supports Brews ohare--- and you are right, you aren't. But having gotten a taste of the type of harassment that gets dished out to those that are, perhaps you are willing to join?
I have given up on Wikipedia, but I went to a NYC meetup, and met some nice people who reminded me why I actually was optimistic about this project to begin with. The nice people are the great majority--- there is no need to block or ban non-rule-breaking people like Brews. Anyway, think about it, and no need to respond. Likebox ( talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this edit, while an astute observation, was placed in the "Users who endorse this summary" section...while not exactly endorsing that summary.
If you could move your comment to a new section on the RfC's talk page, that seems to be more than appropriate. Thanks much! 207.237.230.164 ( talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison ( talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, I put a note on Chris carroll us's talk page just now, urging him to discuss this Hawaii birth certificate thing on the article's talk page rather than trying to wage an edit war. I hope he will accept this suggestion, since I would genuinely like to hear whatever he has to say and have it properly considered for whatever it might be worth — something which is unlikely to happen if his dueling edits cause him to get article-banned or blocked entirely. Richwales ( talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tarc, about the IP that keeps changing the name of Obama's birth certificate. I was about to ask for help at ANI, but have to get read for the Red Wing game tonight. So let me give you some things I noticed about this issue. First, the three sources( 1, 2, 3) that link to the image all refer to the document as Obama's birth certificate. This issue was settled many times before, and the result has always been to refer to the birth certificate as Obama's birth certificate( one such consensus is in archive 10). Hawaiian law, as well as Federal law, refers to the document as Obama's birth certificate and should be considered for all purposes the original. And lastly, the IP is socking with at least one more account. See this edit, and the edit histories for both accounts Ip - TruthfulPerson. It's obvious the editor is using the Ip as an edit warrior account, and at least the one registered account to include sneaky vandalism into Obama related articles. That's all for now. If nothing else, this info is here now. DD2K ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tarc, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shiva Boloorian has been removed. It was removed by Sodabottle with the following edit summary '(contesting prod, there is coverage in farsi language media, because of the large amount of films/tv shows, would like this to go do AfD before being deleted)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sodabottle before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This guy's obviously a troll. He's reverted your revert on the Barack Obama Talk page. Woogee ( talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The talk page says things are archived in 14 days but the bot has gone crazy and archived stuff in 10.
You said not to un-archive stuff so I have listen to you. I have re-archived the stuff that I did not make any comment on. The sections that are under 14 days old that I have commented on remains. Thanks.
I don't want to argue, just voice my opinion on improving articles. Willie Sutton Bank President ( talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You said that I should not edit the comments of others. The reason to the edit was because TreasuryTag moved my defence to his ad hominem to the talk page, on the basis that it is not relevant to the article (to which I agree). However, he kept his ad hominem on the page which I subsequently moved too. However, someone had written a two part comment, the first agreeing with the ad hominem, the second relevant to the article. I split the comment into the two, one of which I moved, with the ad hominem, to the talk page, the other relevant part preserved on the page. You also stated that the article was about one event. This is clearly not the case as the main article states two events, almost half a year apart. -- A930913 ( talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment at WP:ANI. Please see discussion about the image at Talk:Don Murphy. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied at my talkpage. - Regards, Mailer Diablo 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc!
Please add the following to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grundle2600#Suspected_sockpuppets:
Thank you.
I would have done it myself, except the page is protected and I am unable to edit it.
Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to do the honours here, too? Radiopathy •talk• 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That is odd, any idea how that link is mangled? I cliekd on the redlink in this edit summary, which is where the "usr" comes from. I think you moved my comment to the wrong IP though, as the guy I was trying to get to is 208.114.71.183, but you put it at User talk:208.117.33.183. Also interesting but probably unrelated to any of this, is that even though that 208.117.33.183 talk page has an old warning on it, that actual IP is no longer in whois or geolocate. Tarc ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
He should be blocked for ever, and good riddance to him. There is no value to the project in his continued presence at all. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The only irony is that he has been unblocked at all. As for your suggestion of stepping back and dropping the stick... As regards this user if I see his name continuing to edit I will pick up the stick in readiness. There is imo no room for such personal comments and you may think it is fine to say such things but I never will. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 06:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I followed the link to the Ultraviolence article over from the MfD on RAN's userspace article. I've never heard of them, but with 4 albums on Earache Records, Ultraviolence seems notable under WP:MUSIC criteria #5. Can I move it back into article space? Or do you want to? Or is there some reason you haven't already? Yilloslime T C 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well played my man, well played...-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's do an AFD. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 06:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Your post on AN/I, in which you mentioned me was extremely unhelpful, biased and unfair. I suggest before you claim something like that ever again to compare my contributions to yours own for example, how many articles on different topics I created, and how many did you, how many images I have uploaded and how many did you, how many times I commented on AN/I threads that do not concern me personally and how many did you. Please stop making your biased and unfair insinuations. If you are to respond, and I am not really interested in your response, please respond here. I would not like to see you at my talk page.Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I see I am the second person within three days to complain about your behaviour in this respect. Your assumptions (indeed your link) to some topic ban need to be seriously questioned. It was not a page ban, but merely a restriction on editing MoS pages WRT date unlinking/linking. It has absolutely nothing to do with the current issue, and you show yourself to be biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters. You have misled others on the page. I resent it. Tony (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Tarc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sublime Self-Titled.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You realize, don't you, that you are just begging for a response in edit summary "EAT ME"! :)-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the socks you just cited are all me.
I admire your observations regarding my choices of usernames.
I also admire your previous explanation of my User:G-MMDC account. You were the only one to pick up on that, while everyone else missed it.
For the record, User:Yohann4, which has been suspected of being me, is not me. I readily admit that all the others are me, but User:Yohann4 is not me, and I do not like getting the credit for someone else's work.
That being said, I find it reprehensible that you and the others are still removing notable, well sourced info, just because that info happens to be critical of Obama. I have never, ever erased any notable, well sourced material from any article. Articles should cite the good and bad things about their subjects.
Spirobranchus giganteus ( talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable. You made me feel a bit so. Wikipedia should strive to be a happy and cooperative place.
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You caught the "trollz and lulz" post on Jimbo's talk page but you missed this. Considering both his edits I thought a final warning was warranted. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, user is requesting notification of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_concerning_Tarc, excuse me if you have seen it, regards Off2riorob ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Tarc, While I generally disagree with you and so have some conflict that way, I'm finding your comments in DrVs recently to be fairly uncivil. Please consider toning it down a notch or two. Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Haia, Tarc. Re Gwyn Elfyn (and your advocacy for his demotion), you wrote:
>>Not that it matters much anyway, since barring a miraculous influx of well-reasoned keep opinions, this is going to be merged, but...actually, yes, you are. We have a widely-accepted guideline for this type of situation. This particular article fails all 3, yet you feel it should be kept anyways on the basis of "10th longest-serving actor" being notable.<<
Well, I think that it matters not "on the basis of '10th longest-serving actor'" but on the basis that I live in Wales and I can tell you that GE is a pretty damned notable actor here! However, I suppose I must recognize that trying to combat Wp-Americanocentrism is always going to result in mostly lost skirmishes. Doesn't mean though that the battle won't continue! Do have to wonder, all the same, about the apparent, strange mean-mindedness of certain Wp "vigilantes"... -- Picapica ( talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
While I am honored to be your brother in thuggery, you should probably be aware that you have a fan. MastCell Talk 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you meant "trivial" in this edit.— Kww( talk) 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The external link to Political Machine defaults to their main page now for some reason. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium ( talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Freakshownerd is not me.
Also, User:Yohann4, which is suspected of being me, is not me.
I hate current music - totally hate it. But I absolutely love the new album Release Me by The Like. It's fun, cheesy, and retro. They don't make music like this anymore - except now they do!
72.95.242.173 ( talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well this is interesting. This User contributions shows that I now have the same dynamic IP address that I had a month ago. Please don't revert the edits that I made a while ago to Loverboy, as they are non-political and non-controversial. The old edit to Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is also me. That being said, the edits to Socialized medicine and Health maintenance organization from two years ago are not me. 72.95.242.173 ( talk) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
According to this stop your uncivil rant.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded to you here. Thanks for your comment. Swliv ( talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Again I've responded to you there, puzzled this time. Swliv ( talk) 18:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: your removal of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_eulogy_for_the_Wikipedia_that_is_no_more. My posting there is directly relevant to the thread in which it is contained. PLENTY of other people have posted similar comments throughout the thread. If you're going to delete my post, at least have the common decency to cleanse the entire thread of comments regarding protection in abstract. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Stevertigo was -really- claiming entitlement to wider latitude than others. I saw remarks like "you're using one of my shortcuts, BTW" as rhetorical flourishes not intended to convey anything of real weight. At least I hope Stevertigo is not deluded enough to have meant anything of substance by that remark. Anything is possible, though, I suppose. 67.122.209.115 ( talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I filed one of these after providing summary discussion on the talk page, and a description of the dispute. --Regards -- KeptSouth ( talk) 11:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder where the " African Safari" is? -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I declined your speedies on the Palestine articles--see [6] for the rationale. I'm sure you disagree, so it can be discussed either at AfD or at ani. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There is some odd editing going on in a few articles, which I've tried to capture in an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Curvesall. Nothing seems to be happening there, so do you have any suggestions on what course to take, specifically, is this is better handled in an ANI? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey just giving a headsup that I started a conversation on the talk page pertaining to splitting up the albums. My preference is to split things, but I wasn't about to cause a ruckus if there was a strong consensus to keep things as is... although it would be "nice" to keep Nirvana looking like all of the other discographies in Wikipedia. Comment there... I didn't get much of a response before, perhaps a different consensus could be reached? - eo ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You said, "we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now."
No, I haven't run out of ideas for usernames. The reason that I've been using IPs is because recently, every time I had a user name that was at least 4 days old (the minimal requirement for editing semi-protected articles) the account had already been blocked before I ever got a chance to use it. It happened with about 15 or so accounts. I think someone wrote a script to block them before I get a chance to use them. 71.182.212.229 ( talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Gerardo Puisseaux, 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! VER Tott 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
First, there's a difference between a merge and a delete, and you are simply deleting. Second, you're well aware there is only a week before the election and there's no compelling reason to rush through articles at this point in time, other than rabid partisanship. If the issues couldn't be resolved a month ago, they can wait one more week. There's simply not time to do proper merges at this point, and I am not going to let you make Wikipedia yet more fodder for bloggers claiming we don't play fair. Flatterworld ( talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the ANI situation and the associated AfDs have been an extremely messy affair and frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations, but I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed. I'm going to be avoiding this area now, since it seems to involve more teeth and nails than words, now.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I collapsed it because the discussion about a userfied version of the article is tangential to the DRV. We are merely trying to determine of the deletion discussion in April 2009 was closed properly, reflecting consensus of that discussion. Whether she is notable or not is a separate issue and not part of DRV. Nevertheless, if you still feel differently, please feel free to uncollapse again; I'm not edit-warring about it. It clouds the issue and the purpose of DRV, but if you feel differently, that's OK with me too. Frank | talk 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I guess the community disagrees with me, thus I will apologize. I do think your timing and approach could have been better. If you had waited an hour or two to let the discussion at ANI die down, nobody would have questioned your actions. It was coming and usurping the discussion by sending articles to AFD that has people questioning your actions. (nobody challenges OrangeMike's doing the exact same thing) Anyways, I still think it does no harm to wait a week, but it may do harm to rush the AFD's (would you want a big AFD tag on your article questioning your notability the week before an election?) But that is neither here nor there. Again, my apologies.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make the edit to add the name, but Angie Simms is the "grandchild" in the "Really Bad Grandpa" skit. Nocarsgo ( talk) 16:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is now archived, but to clarify after reading your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 2, I have pretty thick skin; I don't take any personal offense with the template, I simply feel that the wording is such that it may well simply spark further issues in controversial threads, especially if misused. I've withdrawn the nomination though since several users clearly find it useful and User:Thesevenseas made a valid point that it may actually have the opposite effect to what I feared; I'll hold my cynicism until there are actual issues with its usage. Just felt I should explain my view as you appeared to be getting the wrong idea about my comments on the template. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"I don't know why the article is so important to her, but it must be very powerful or she wouldn't want to trash it so badly." (Glinda to Dorothy, paraphrased) Moore's still the 2010 nominee, and will always have that 'title'. I've seen boxes at the end of similar articles showing previous, current and subsequent nominees. Anyway, I restored the infobox and updated the rest of the article. We really do need better guidelines, starting with a full discussion now that the election's over. Flatterworld ( talk) 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the details were matching up though. He clearly didn't write the song in '56, so even if he did record a song by that name the article as it stood was still a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you were involved in a discussion of that source at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. It has been now used as a source at Nazism to state some facts about al-Husayni. For now, I've just attributed them. Note that the editor who introduced the book as source at Nazism, User:WookieInHeat, is currently blocked for an unrelated incident (but still in the same IP area), so he cannot respond until tomorrow or so. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You may want to reconsider your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Pakistan, since User:CMBJ has made significant improvements to the article. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you're Izzy, maybe you can tell me what this "guise of a different name" is, that's so coyly alluded to in the article but not actually specified. :) — chaos5023 ( talk) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest toning "your sense of proportion is...poop, shall we say mildly" down quite a bit next time you get the urge to leave an edit summary like that. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tarc,
I don't want to buy into the editing disagreement that's happening with Anne Rice, but my reading of the last paragraphs of Anne Rice#Exit from organized religion indicates to me that she still considers herself a Christian, just not a member of a formal church. The relevant page on her website Anne's Profession of Faith (Already cited in the article) includes the text "I am a believer in every word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Regards Kiore ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
whats the deal with all these porn bios? half of them looked likt they are entirely made up, and when you try to look through their sources most of them are blogs and industry websites -- not exacly WP:RSs for any other subject. i think that you are right to target some of these with WP:AFD as they dont seem to even attempt to meet any acceptable threshold of notability and contain numerous sources that would not pass muster in any other article series. User:Smith Jones 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. SnottyWong confess 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, man, I received your email to come on here. I don't really understand what you want me to do about that RFCU thing though. I can look into it but I can't really make promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomtube ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I get around... I bet is on a disgruntled #3 or #4 this time around though. Tarc ( talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me of where that comes this rule?. Is to learn more. Greetings. JGabriel ar ( talk) 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The same types of sources that you have been told over and over and over and (do we sense a pattern?) over again are not sufficient for establishing notability. Seriously, how many AfDs have we been through now where your links to toy guides and fan forums have been utterly rejected by the Wikipedia community?
Perhaps if one can find a list of times that Ignash's sources have been rejected, we can open a Request for comment. Perhaps I should ask on the Transformers WikiProject talk page? NotARealWord ( talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make edit summaries [7] that require me to revdelete them. Somebody who is religious who sees that may take it as a very severe insult. There is no need. Okay, thanks. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved your reply to me to the place I think you meant it to be in the DrV on Scientology deaths. Feel free to move it back if I messed with your original intent. Hobit ( talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)