User talk:Captainktainer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, Captainktainer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

And for more detailed information:

  • Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
  • Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Per WP: Neglected Articles (Metapsychiatry)

Hi, and thanks for asking.

I would reccommend that the article be put up for PROD before anything else. That way, if someone is actually paying attention, they'll clean it up as needed; if not, it will dissapear naturally; and if contested, it can then be taken to AFD where it will probably lose. Hope this helps.--み使い Mitsukai 12:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

The IP in question was identified by a check-user enabled admin as belonging to a banned-user. The IP had posted the same trolling edits on a whole pile of pages, I simply mass-rolled back all their edits without distinction. Sorry about that. I was not deliberately singling out your userpage for reversion. Thanks. --Doc ask? 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My reply to Mccready

Hello Captainktainer : ), I wanted to be very delicate in my response to Mccready. Therefore, I placed my reply on his/her talk page and the talk page of my RFA. All of the examples of me removing comments had a sound explanation. You had no way of knowing this when you made your comments in my RFA. I apologize for not making the information available. I hope you will look at my reply and reconsider your opposition to my RFA. In either case, thank you for your interest in my RFA. regards, FloNight talk 10:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Captainktainer, I have three children in college taking finals right now, so I certainly understand! Take care, FloNight talk 11:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Captainktainer : ) Your message was the first thing I saw this morning when I signed on. Very nice way to start the day. I'm glad your exam went well. take care, FloNight talk 10:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support on my RfA!

Image:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)

Hi, Steve block placed a convincing argument in favor for deletion on the linked deletion request which cites WP:V in saying that the content needs to be verified with third-party content. Just letting you know. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's partly why I haven't

Think of how many people wouldn't be here if they didn't have a chance to edit when they were anons! That's part of the reason why Wikipedia is great-anyone can edit it!--69.145.123.171 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and George made my userpage. I really like it. :) 69.145.123.171 Hello! Thursday, June 29, 2006, 02:20 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Shift (music)

I've rewritten the article... care to have another look? Grutness...wha? 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job; changed my vote to keep. It would be helpful if you could do the following, though:
  • List the source
  • Clear up whether the band's name is Red Shift or Redshift, and after AfD is over with (the closing admin really doesn't have a leg to stand on for closing as delete now), if the band's name is Redshift, use the page move function to move it over to the correct article.
  • Find out when the last two albums on the list were released.
I really don't know anything about the subject matter, so I'm not too comfortable editing the article. Anyway, I'm always impressed when someone manages to rescue an article from AfD, so thanks :-) Captainktainer * Talk 04:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points all. I only know about the band because I run an ambient music radio show once a week. I'm in New Zealand, so if a UK band is known that far away it's notable enough to keep! I've added external links, which covers the source of the information, and the band's name seems to be Redshift, so it will need moving (I would have moved it by now, but moving it during an afd is always a hassle), Still looking for the album release dates. Grutness...wha? 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Lowell

My point was that listing the colonization of mars as a priority is proof that the article is rubbish, nothing to do with him being a crank. I stand by my vote. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I figured...

I should officially say hi and thanks again. Kchase02 gave me a couple of lessons, one of which was how to leave you a message on your talk page. It's been really nice to meet people who don't bite. :) Halle Leah 05:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dillard's stores

FYI. I withdrew the nom and found a few sources. Thanks for defending the newbie above, btw.--Kchase02 T 03:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted confirmed DOOM/DOOM 2/DOOM 3 info, why?

uh, those edits i did on the doom 3/doom 2/doom pages were completely valid. Id software did confirm another DOOM game at e3 2006, as you can see right on the frontpage of planetdoom.com, gamespy's doom site. Other DOOM sites are have confirmed this as well. And Idsoftware and spalsh damage are working together on ET: quake wars, and id is working on a unnamed IP unrelated to DOOM at the moment. Why would you remove useful confirmed information? shoot me an email at beavermatic@gmail.com and tell me what i need to do to get it authenticated Beavermatic 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Congressional candidate deletions

I appreciate your comment on my talk page. For what it's worth, I know of five cases of House candidates proposed for deletion:

To be fair, I think two of these were brought up by (a?) disgruntled editor(s) who disagreed with a prior deletion of a candidate. Also, to be fair, I've not been monitoring the deletion log for more than the past week or so.

At this point, I'm going to decline to take your suggestion that I demonstrate a good-faith effort to find Republican nominees that have been brought up for deletion. I really don't have the time, and even if I did did, and found (say) three other Democratic examples and (say) two Republican examples, what exactly what would I do with that information?

I raised the question I did for two reasons. First, because I really hoped that people who HAVE been participating in discussions about deleting political candidates would come right back at me with "Oh yeah, what about X and Y?", in which case I would have thanked them and dropped the matter. Second, I hoped to raise consciousness a bit as to the possibility that, for whatever reason, the deletion nominations for House races might be a bit one-sided. It's hard to measure if that happened.

I do plan to monitor the deletion nominations from this point out; if deletion nominations appear one-sided in the future, then maybe I'll raise the issue again. John Broughton 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

With regards to your comments on my talk page: please put a cork in it, especially if you're too lazy to actually write a comment and rely upon pasting in a template.

As far as I'm concerned, John Broughton and his little attack of bad-faith paranoia richly deserved a slap -- and I notice from his message above that he's still at it. To answer his no-doubt-intended-to-be-rhetorical question, what exactly what would I do with that information? -- he could realize that his passive-aggressive little drive-by was wrong and apologize. But if guess if he's too busy "raising consciousness" he doesn't have time for facts. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a more personalized message, then I will gladly write one.

No, I said that want you to keep your nannying opinions to yourself: I said especially, not unless. See the difference?

You are accusing a fellow contributor of acting in bad faith without evidence Wrong. Passive-aggressively accusing "fellow contributors" of nominating only Democratic candidates -- without the slightest shred of evidence -- is about as obvious an example of bad-faith as I can imagine. Or is your notion of bad-faith situational?
You are accusing him of paranoia, despite the fact that Wikipedia has been used in the past to promote one candidate over another, often with official sanction, and despite the fact that systemic bias is one of the most frequently cited problems with Wikipedia, which together create a reasonable concern that we do not allow ourselves to be manipulated. Your first clause seems to have not the slightest connection with the corresponding clauses -- not to mention your use of "fact" to describe your claims -- especially the bit about "systemic bias". Mind showing me the slightest bit of evidence that the concerns of the two major political parties in the United States has the slightest bearing on "systemic bias"? Especially since the only charges I can recall having to do with American political processes has to do with third parties?
As for the paranoia, I'd say claiming that people are opposing you just because -- no evidence, no pattern, no consideration of alternative explanations, or even whether such opposition exists to begin with -- is a pretty good basis for positing paranioa. Or do you find content-free accusations acceptable on a situational basis?
You chose to lash out and insult and vilify a fellow contributor, unnecessarily. Wrong choice of verbs there, not to mention the incorrect adverb. I chose to confront, strongly, a "fellow contributor" peddling a line of bogosity. If you think intellectually dishonest manipulation of a discussion is A-OK, maybe you ought to examine your own premises.
You violated three of the core policies - WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA - and that behavior is not acceptable. Pardon me if I don't take your nannying lecture -- based as it is on false premises -- seriously. Got a problem? File an RFC. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA!

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If I can ever help, just let me know! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kittie May Ellis

Thank you for your vote in support of Keeping this article. If you have a moment, perhaps you could vote again on the review here. Thanks~ image:smile.png Wjhonson 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Bradford AfD

I don't know if you've checked back with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bradford (professor), but it's being heavily sockpuppeted to create the appearance of a tidal wave for deletion (which also taints real voters by creating a bandwagon effect). Since you described yourself as a persuadable "weak delete," I'm hoping you'll take a second look.

First, I don't know how much of a news junkie you are, but when I finally found a photo of Bradford[1], I remembered catching him as an occasional MSNBC or Fox guest, even before the controversy. Not frequent, not A-list, but there.

I also believe your comment that you would be impressed by evidence that Fox News covered him, but not Frontpagemag, led me to believe that others would also dismiss Frontpagemag, and until recently kept me from bringing up the extensive attention that Frontpagemag and David Horowitz personally gave to the case. This has really crimped my case, since David Horowitz was perhaps the biggest sponsor of Bradford's cause at the national level.

Anyway, here's what I found out. Bradford had to resign because evidence turned up that he wasn't a Green Beret and Silver Star recipient[2]. The reason that info wasn't in the article that you read was that it keeps getting deleted when it's put in, the last time right before the deletion process started. When I posted my findings, two users actually edited my comment, causing me to look more closely and find out that the discussion was being sockpuppeted.

My efforts to find evidence that Fox News gave his case extensive coverage, so I could prove to you and others that he was notable, has been largely fruitless. Without the tapes, I can't really know what Fox was covering. O'Reilly had him on at least once during the controversy. All I found on Fox's site related to John Gibson. On December 16, 2003, "Major" William Bradford is John Gibson's top guest, to discuss interrogating Saddam[3]. On August 18, 2004, the "Major" comes on to discuss the Sadr ceasefire in Najaf[4]. On June 29, 2005, he is not a guest, but John Gibson's "My Word" contrasts his case against Ward Churchill[5]. (I've also found a blog post about Bradford going on a Denver talk radio show multiple times.[6])

I also found a Dean's Report (Google cache HTML)(original PDF) covering a six-month period from around April to October 2004 (before the controversy), which on p. 36-38 notes appearances on local media, the Gibson Sadr appearance, NPR Morning Edition, and Radio France Info, as well as interviews for stories in five or six out-of-town newspapers. Not a heavy-hitter, for sure, but not bad for someone who'd only been a professor for two years. Not sure if that's enough for you to count as notable.

Also, I wish you would reconsider the weight you put on Frontpagemag. You may not like David Horowitz, but he makes a lot of appearances and goes on a lot of TV and radio talk shows. Horowitz has made Wade Churchill (WTC "little Eichmanns") his prime example of radical leftist dominance of academia. He used the Bradford case to contrast him, the war-hero "authentic" Indian being persecuted by leftist academics, with their coddling of the unpatriotic impostor Indian Churchill. His Students for Academic Freedom site created a special page featuring Frontpagemag's articles on his case[7]. He has posted an excerpt of the introduction from his latest book, targetting Churchill, which even after Bradford's disgrace, still has a mention of his case (passage before note 5)[8]. The blog I cited earlier has another article, saying that Horowitz continued to use the Bradford case on a radio appearance for his book[9].

Anyway, I don't know if this is enough to change your vote, but I hope you will at least consider this evidence. --Groggy Dice 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanford B. Dole

Hi! Thanks for the message! Regarding "Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do The Facts Matter?", it is published by Goodale Publishing, and sold on amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966294513/sr=8-1/qid=1153689952/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5918650-6101734?ie=UTF8) so I'm pretty sure it isn't a vanity press book.

Regarding the Morgan Report wiki, it is a project which took the Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, dated February 26, 1894. It is linked to by the University of Hawaii at their Annexation Documents site. It includes both the original scanned images from the Morgan Report, as well as transcription, fully searchable. As a primary source, I think it also rates as reliable. --JereKrischel 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although Thurston Twigg-Smith is the owner of publishing interests, I still think it is inaccurate to call his book vanity publishing. An unfounded accusation about bias in an amazon review, or posts on a discussion board hardly disqualifies his book as a reliable source. Since it is available online for free, I encourage you to skim over it yourself, and examine it for yourself - it is well referenced, and based on sources you can validate. IMHO, as a free online downloadable PDF, it is a particularly valuable resource - Kuykendall, Daws and Andrade (which Twigg-Smith heavily relies upon) would be wonderful to cite directly, but I know of no online versions of their books.
That all being said, is there a particular concern you have with the Sanford Dole article? Particular points you'd like to see specific citations for? Points you've seen contradicted elsewhere? If I better understood your concerns, I could direct my citations more efficiently.
Thanks again for your attention to the article! The addition of references will help it out considerably, and any help you can give regarding which points you're most interested in would be valuable. --JereKrischel 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia, Inc.

Thanks for reverting the recent edit of Wikia, Inc. made by the user at IP address 75.23.152.36. That edit was probably made by the banned user Amorrow who is known to edit using IP addresses that start with numbers such as 75, 68 and 67 (see also the pages that link to Template:Pinktulip. --JWSchmidt 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with need to sprotect, and done. Thanks for reverting.  ; - ) FloNight talk 16:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Garnett (politician)

I made some improvements to the article Christopher Garnett (politician). Are the changes enough to change your mind about your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Garnett (politician)? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Garnett (politician)

Thanks for AfD'ing Christopher Garnett (politician). I had put this on {{prod}} a few days ago but the notice was deleted. You may like to add the other Mayors of Colchester to your nomination as they have the same issue:

Some are still on prod but no matter. Graham Bober is a much fuller article but essentially has the same claim to notability. Even though it was entirely written by a 'Bober' and is likely vanity, I think it could complicate a multiple AFD process. Martín (saying/doing) 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Info box (biography)

Thank you for your message. It has been responded to here [10] Giano | talk 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Mr. President

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Dear Mr. President. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. I have also told the other editor this. Extraordinary Machine 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco Advertising

Yeah, I left him a message on his talk/discussion page that basically said "If you don't like playing by wikipedia rules, you should go elsewhere with your crusade." I was tempted to say something about conspiracy theories, but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. John Broughton 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom 3 external links

Hi, and thanks for your message. In general, I'm not a fan of linking to anything but the most important sites related to a game - so, on that we differ - and so, I'm not sure doomwadstation really needs a mention there. However, if you think it adds something to the article, there's no reason to remove it. Just be prepared to stop other sites adding themselves to that list, and have a consistent reason for doing so. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 21:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From the very quick glance I've taken at it, it seems it may already be at B-class. I recommend you do the best you can, and whenever you think it's ready, check if it meets WP:WIAGA, and nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates when you think it's ready. That's what I'm doing with Personal computer game, which is of a far lower quality than your article - but is still rated B. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Color Classics

Referenced and revised. And once this public-domain copy of THe CObweb Hotel downloads, there'll be a free-use image as well. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nabassu

Thank you for your decision of restoring the page about the Nabassu! I really appreciate your decision and as soon as I can update it with new infos I'll do! Thx again! Bye! --Eldar Featel 11:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back in the archives - Louise Sauvage

Some time ago, you edited Louise Sauvage, which has had no references throughout its existence. Would it be possible to dig up reliable sources for the information in the article? Thanks. Captainktainer * Talk 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do the external links I've added count? They're not <ref>'d into the article, but there's nothing too specific. -- Zanimum 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Fulmer

Thanks for the concern. I'm mostly trouble over this statement "Fulmer is alleged to have provided incriminating evidence against a rival school in exchange for leniency in regards to the NCAA investigation into alleged academic fraud during Tennessee's national championship season of 1998." Which itself was unsourced and is a vague rumor.

Also the statement "An investigation by Montgomery-based attorney Tommy Gallion to uncover the truth of this conspiracy was hindered due to Fulmer's refusal to submit to a deposition and Fulmer's refusal to make a mandatory appearance at the SEC Media Days in 2004, under fears of a subpoena." is not a accurate reflection of the source, or the controversy.

I believe it violates NPOV because of the tone (see fairness of tone) and because of its sensational presentation.

Maybe the section needs to be reworked, or maybe the begining of the edit should be left alone. However, I do not think that it should be left as is. What do you think? CJC47 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to talk about the controversy, but to try to point it in a neutral direction. This was a highly contentious subject for the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry. There was an Attorney who was an Alabama fan that was convinced that the NCAA had a conspiracy to harm the University of Alabama. I don't think it belongs in the article, but if it does, it needs to be neutral. CJC47 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Carroll

Captain-

Go ahead and delete the page. Unable to find anything that supports it..Thanks for the help. Still trying to learn the system. Got the basics down, but always open for support. Thanks again! :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfullererie (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 August 2006.

Thanks again..hope to hear more from you! Mfullererie 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Farscape article

Hi,

I was just trying to get some separation with the entries and add a few pics. I see you originally made it, so if you want to change it back to its original format feel free. If I end up adding any more characters I'll just stick to whatever you'd like.

All right, thanks for tips! 205.237.160.154 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your input

Thank you for your input for the States' Rights article. Sorry I was steamed at the IP address person, perhaps more than I should have been. Jimmuldrow 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Jimmuldrow as well, as he is reverting mine as much as I am reverting his. 69.105.0.115 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I was just warning him. Any suggestions on the other issues, such as whether the decisions allow general discrimination or only discrimination that is rational and whether the Morrison case involved her trying to compel Virginia to prosecute the man or sue it for damages? 69.105.0.115 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metapsychiatry

Thank you for your note. I am concerned, because I did not make these edits--someone else did so, using my signature. ????

JNW 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abramoff

I and others have tried very hard to make the Abramoff articles accurate -- in particular, basing what to include not on claims made by partisans on either side but on the investigative and criminal record. If you feel that there is inaccurate weighting going on, please discuss first rather than reverting. --User At Work 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Baskin-Robbins

Certainly, thanks for asking. That user is a long time known vandal (see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/MascotGuy) and had put that edit in before. While the edit itself isn't particuarly problematic (I'd have no problem if you put it back in), the editor is a problem, and that's why I reverted. Hope this helps, and thanks again for asking. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot_Guy edit to Baskin-Robbins

Don't worry—that you've left messages on talk pages is proof enough that you're not MascotGuy. :) —tregoweth (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs PS - I will take to heart your comments re AFD.

[edit] Listing photos as Obsolete

My appologies, Captainktainer. I maked them as obsolete on accident. I meant to mark them as orphans. =/ Bradcis 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattsimmo88

I wouldn't take it to AIV. I've given him another warning; if he continues, I'll block him for a bit to get his attention. —tregoweth (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolababy

I have not gotten in any disputes through wikipedia. However, I am a frequent user of the George W. Bush message boards at imdb.com, and the names sounds familiar; it is possible that Lolababy is a poster there, at which point it is conceivable that said poster has a grudge against me. Thanks for fixing the mess!--Mr Beale 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lolababy definitely came from the imdb boards. One of his or her early vandalisms was: IMDB has thousands of posters on the IMDB message boards. According to a recent poll in the George W. Bush forum, the stupidest posters on IMDB are wallydanger (easily voted #1), Bootknocker, presto-3, Gallus, coldstick, Wolfn, Mr_Beale, AgentJ29, Kyros, Alonzo-Mosley, Stench_Warfare, Xezbeth, and LamontSmith. According to the same poll, the smartest include linguist1967, ryan-anderson, Wolf, and proudrepublican81. Blitzkrieg_18 was also voted most likely to take it up the ass. And, as you can see, he or she clearly did not like me. Thanks again. --Mr Beale 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


    • So, "CAPTAIN," why do you keep changing "porn star" to "pornographic actress?"

Seems strange, since both are in guidelines but one is downgrading of the girl.

... Incidentally, "Captain," no sale on your spin rationalization for why you keep changing porn star to pornographic actress. It's not "encyclopedic," you say. "Porn star" is a widely accepted term. That is the fact. Vicca is a former porn star by any reasonable view. Live with it.

[edit] Meatpuppets and newbies

Thanks for the reminder not to bite the newbies. I have deleted my biting comments originally made here. All the best to you. Rohirok 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Ms. Bryant and Pie

The definition of demagogue:

"A person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people." (Random House Unabr. Dict.)
"A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires or prejudices rather than by using rational argument." (Oxford American Dict.)
"A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace." (American Heritage Dict.)
"A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power." (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dict.)

I cannot imagine why you think this is inflammatory rather than simply accurate—perhaps David Duke is also merely an "activist" (a word that holds positive connotations for many people)—but I don't think it's worth fighting over. Perhaps the pie-throwing section should be moved to its own page, anyway. Rivertorch 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbing trend

The "disturbing trend", if you'd bothered to investigate, would be Dr U unilaterally edit-warring over use of an established category which he finds too negative. His problem, not mine. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Was not referring to your interactions with Dr U being the disturbing trend. I was referring to your habit of toeing the line of the no personal attacks and civility policies, which your comment was a part of. Captainktainer * Talk 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] transphobia

Here we go again. This is the same user that was banned earlier today, with the same edit. I'm not going thorough this again, and having learned from my previous mistake, this, though the comment is vandalism (especially with all that's happened) as far as I am concerned, I am not going to touch it. Somebody else can deal with it when they get around to seeing it, and I will merely continue to report any personal attack made in WP:PAIN. A copy of this message has also been left on the admin noticeboard. Thankyou for your time. Crimsone 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again :) The usual IP has once more reverted the article. Given everything that's happened, given the users reluctance to properly discuss the issue and see anything besides his own POV, I feel (as you mentioned) that this is getting rather silly. As I said though, I'm not going to revert this user anymore. Incidentally, the revert still has no grounds :( Kind regards, --Crimsone 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
But isn't the entire issue here that the article itself has no grounds and no citations to support it? Since at least three peopel have objected to this idea of "transphobia", I do believe that a neutralizing viewpoint should be permitted.
No. The article DOES have grounds as has been agreed by all but yourself on the talkpage. Most of the "citation needed" tags in the article can be sourced, of of those, most can be sourced using the external links and sources already listed in the article. Of the three objecting parties, one of them was a contributor of clear vandalism, the other was reverted by another user shortly after, and you yourself have been reverted by a number of people. The point of a wiki article is factual accuracy which can be cited, not personal POV. Crimsone 17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of, turns out most of the sources were embedded in the External Links section. It may be helpful to find other statements that can be sourced to the existing resources; I'm done for today, though. Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol. I said they were there :)
Seriously though, thanks Captainktainer. I did actually leave a message on the page talk to similar effect requesting help with the actual markup and system of citing, and unless you've read it, you've unknowingly answered it :) That was quite some work you just did, and you deserve a thankyou, which I will no doubt get around to giving you either later or when I log on again tomorrow :) I'll see about sourcing a little more of the article in a moment :) Thanks again, --Crimsone 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Kei

Funny how nothing in the article is 'sourced'. The sentence you removed is accurate by inspection.

[edit] DND Campaigns

I want to start off by saying that I fully respect that this is your site and that you make the rules. I understand that, I only want to explain myself, and then you can ax my stuff if you still feel it necessary.

"Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable."

I don't mean to be presumptuous by spitting your own doctrine in your face, and acting like I know everything, but this is what I read in the WPNot before I began writing anything.

In the terms of the rules you have laid out I consider this to be a project that I have been personally involved with, being the writer (DM) for the bulk of our sessions. None of what I have written is autobiographical, and is completely neutral. My friends and I all fancy ourselves as writers. Each of us has at least one book in the works, so naturally being story tellers, DND is a lot of fun for us. Its a way for us to bounce ideas off one another before we put them into manuscript, or sometimes because we know we'll never have the chance to include them elsewhere. Ultimately we have chosen this environment because it is harmless, and I feel the same about the articles we are beginning to include. These articles are no less professional, than the ones written about Marvel and DC Comics, or the DND articles themselves for that matter. I began these to create an effective, and factual directory of spoken tales of fiction that I would not like forgotten.

I have said my peace, and if you still wish to delete my articles I will understand. I will only be disappointed because I love this site and what it stands for, and I was excited that I thought I had found something to add to it.Broken Piece 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know

That "slashify" episode you spoke of here [11] is was actually the result of a bug in a freeware firewall program called teatimer. I have seen if before. The slashes appear after all (") or (') in an attempt to evade cookies. I guess it was never fixed. Just so you know. 66.246.72.108 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I FOLLOWED ALL THE RIGHT TO VANISH PROCEDURES AND SOME IDIOT DECIDED TO SPAM PRODECT MY TALK PAGE?

Please help me, this crazy guy User:Geni will not let me enact the Right To Vansh Policy!

[12] 69.167.100.155 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up, just when I tried to get away from wikipedia, these people pull me back in. I just wanted to delete my ip address from the system and move on with my like. I followed your references and now I am in some huge tiff with these wikibullies. Help me please for the love of whatever it is you may believe in! I beg of you.

69.167.100.155 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Response is on your talk page for you to read. Captainktainer * Talk 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ligitimate warnings

I understand the term legitimate and disagree with your perception. The warnings are just a ploy to discredit me. Please be aware of anterior motives and double standards from other users.

[edit] Reinserting of Spam

I will now resort to reporting your re-inserting of links to advertising sites. The biased nature of your actions is not exceptable. I wish we can come to an agreement to what is spam and or not.

[edit] Stained Glass Tips

article's talk page Please come and discuss inclusion of my website :)

Thanks,

Desg 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[edit] Reply on Mohammed picture

I´m writing in reply to what you posted on my talk page.

As I have already stated in my own user page:

"I do vouch for the fact that I obtained the illustration from the website mentioned in the picture page, and, according to that website, it is a fifteenth century illustration of Mohammed preaching to his earliest followers. Also according to the said source ulr, the ilustration is recorded in the Manuscripts Arabe, in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. The source ulr seems reliable, and it categorizes several Mohammed pictures in different groups, e.g. contemporary cartoons, Middle Ages illustrations by Muslims (it seems that there was a Persian group that allowed depicting the Prophet), Middle Ages illustrations by non-Muslims (e.g. Dante´s Inferno), etc. The illustration in question is from the group of pictures of Arab origin. Someone else has made minor corrections to the image description, but I vouch for the description online at this moment. It is my view that there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the source. --Moshe Katslav 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)" --Moshe Katslav 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

Sorry for spamming. I will stop. Can I play around with the sandbox though?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.19.20.130 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 September 2006.

Reply is on your talk page. Captainktainer * Talk 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Muhammad revert

Point taken. I didn't revert, but rather copied the intro from a previous version. Apparently I didn't completely replace the existing version in my edits. Thanks for the notice. —Aiden 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whistler's Mother

Thank you for pointing out that one should not remove a disambiguation notice, as I did here. Maybe you can help with this question: It seems a bit much to have a tv show referred to here under both disambiguation and 'pop culture' headings. I though that the pop culture mention was sufficient. Is there any standard on this? Thanks again for your good work,

JNW 11:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that edit was quite a while back--sometimes it takes me a long time to articulate a thought(!). Thank you for your explanation. But I do find this disambiguation unnecessary; for instance, does the painting Mona Lisa need a disambiguation for the song by Nat King Cole? Does the painter Rembrandt need a disambiguation for the pop group the Rembrandts? Uh oh..I'd better check to see if Michelangelo has a disambiguation for a mutant ninja turtle.

Believe me, I am making fun of my own hair-splitting, as much as the more general topic. But maybe this is an issue on which I am ignorant, and need to read up on.

Thank you again,

JNW 13:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer a fuller explanation. I confess a nearly total lack of appreciation for the workings of the search process, and you have been most helpful. Best regards,

JNW 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI

Concerning the Mingebag deletion thing... to be completely honest, even if the article didn't violate a single Wikipedia policy, I still would have requested the article be removed as a pointless article. I'd rather argue something proper (aka "this article is pointless") than improper (aka "this article violates policy 1235"). After all, most of Wikipedia's policies are jokes, and the best articles are ones that typically ignore 'em. Just saying. Scumbag 07:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:WP:CHILD

I guess I could help on that guideline. But isn't there some sort of policy that already covers this situation? If not, I unfortunately wouldn't be able to help as much. You see, I am a freshman in high school, and I am receiving this huge load of tests and homework that wikipedia time is minimal. I will try as much as I can to help, though. I hope you understand.--Edtalk c E 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you made the policy yet?--Edtalk c E 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Independence Party of New York

Inexplicable? They were errors. There is no mention I can find in any party publication of a party color. Why blue? Need citation. Political ideology link to "independent" leads to definition of a politician without a party. A party is not a politician without a party - that's nonsensical. "Reform" is better definition based on party's platform, especially as former affiliate of the Reform Party of United States. Web site www.ipny.org clearly states it is not the official web site of the party. To write "footnote=none" leaves an inexplicable "none" at the bottom of the box. To remove "none" after international affiliation is inconsistent with "none" after other headings such as leaders. The party states it has no affiliations. Please correct if you agree or explain why you don't.

[edit] Bachmann Page, PRT & LRT

You are right...the Hiawatha LRT is a success [13]

Bachmann transportation facts [14]

Avidor 00:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your clarification [15]. I very much appreciate the effort taken to avoid labelling editors by religious, ethnic or national attributes. --BostonMA

[edit] I made the criticisms section.

It was me, but it was a blatant attack on highly intelectual people.

--Backhander 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS

Congratulations on getting engaged, i hope it all goes well for you.

--Backhander 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derbi and then some...x1.1

Greetings...

not sure if I read the history log right, but I noticed that by the time your sig was in the version control portion, the Derbi page had been wiped of previous content that I had written...can you help me understand what has happened and what I am missing...

referenced page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbi

thanks in advance, Jim...


[edit] Your E-mail

Hey, I just read your E-Mail. Thanks, its appreciated.--Irishpunktom\talk 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

I am sorry about the tag. The article is just so confusing.MOI 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprisey restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Of course. :) I tend to react especially quickly when I've blocked somebody before. If you see anybody inserting backslashes with quotes, constantly, it's got to do with badly configured proxy software and escape characters, I'm told. Luna Santin 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bachmann

I did check the Talk page. The BLP is being used as an excuse to delete properly sourced elements.

[edit] Thank you :)

For this. I didnt realise a rationale would be need (for the reasons you stated - much better than I could however!) Appreciated Glen 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Image:Maomé.jpg

I edited the description from the manuscript description in the Bibliothèque Nationale's online catalog or manuscript images, Mandragore.

It doesn't preserve links to past searches but you can type in the manuscript shelf number, Arabe 1489, to find a list of the pages with images and the image is described there as "fol. 5v, muhammad interdisant l'intercalation." --SteveMcCluskey 01:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You were originally involved in the Al Aqsa discussion

Here [16], perhaps you'd like to comment on the subject here : [17] Amoruso 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spelling of Kachchh

Dear Captainktainer, you have reverted my edits about spelling of Kachchh. I will appreciate if you can explain reason to do so. As I already mentioned on the talk page of the article, during old-time Kutch was a spelling in use. So no wonder many people still keep using it including web-sites shown in external links. I am not particulary against using that spelling if somebody wants to add material in the article using this spelling. I am from Kachchh so I know what is the correct spelling for my place. I am trying to make article consistant with correct spelling. New spelling was adopted after the independence of India by collective will of people living in this region, that is why all the government offices use Kachchh to refer this place. That is also the reason I want this article should refer this place with spelling Kachchh. It is not new phenomena. Many other places have adopted proper spellings e.g. Bombay is now Mumbai, Burma is now Myanmar, etc. I believe Wikipedia should present correct and latest information. If we keep old spelling on this article new visitor will tend to believe it as correct. Also new contributor may also use the old spelling in order to keep whole article consistant. I hope you will understand this and I request not to take this as an issue of pride. pruthvi 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay.

I obviously thought WikiWoo was some sort of vandal.

And, uh, i was scolding him, harshly. RocketMaster 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a case filed here. You were mentioned as someone whose input would be valued. If you would like to participate, please visit the mediation page and sign up. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Doom 3 External Links

Hi, I would be grateful if you can explain the criteria for removing the PlanetPhillip link from the Doom 3 Links. It is no different from the sites above in providing news, reviews and other Doom 3 related resources. PlanetPhillip 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply on my page (not sure if you are watching it. :)PlanetPhillip 15:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom 3

I understand that you try to guard against unverified informatinon and original research BUT...a reception section with NO mention of the game's shortcomings whatsover is pretty suspect. I believe that it is actually a case of the other contributors not paying attention, which is why noone answered your call. Regardless, that isn't a green light to just delete, especially when an editor of the deleted section returns a couple months later and finds out. Reviewers said that it was a good game but not a great game like those that went on to be "Game of the Year". GoldDragon 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I've been heavy handed in dealing with you. I did initially misinterpret your intentions; I should have realized with your subsequent edit that you weren't a POV pusher at all as you were able to much of the reception section once it was sourced.
This is likely where I differ with you on. Much of the rebuttal section (take the explanation for lack of flashlight for example) isn't easily sourced, in fact I think that it was a gamer's experience rather than being a fact. I don't mind if it has to have an unsourced tag as a reminder but I say that its presence serves a useful purpose as an explanation. GoldDragon 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note from Muhammad mediation

Hi there, I am just dropping you a note because you signed up to participate at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. We have not heard from you since we started discussing proposed criteria for including images, so I'm just asking whether you plan to participate further. If so, we need you to agree or disagree to the criteria we have developed. Important note: The criteria will be used only if the group decides to include images, which will be later in the mediation. Agreeing to the criteria does not mean that you agree to including any images. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good morning, as you can see here, it is fairly clear that the consensus is opposed to your second suggestion. The consensus is shared by parties who are both for and against inclusion of images. I suggest that you consider tabling this suggestion. It is a given that WP:NOT is followed, as it is policy; however, the editors seem to agree that WP:Profanity can be considered. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello again - since it has been 9 days since my query and you have not responded, I will consider your proposal tabled in 24 hours. We need to move forward with the mediation. Thanks --Ars Scriptor 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (formerly Aguerriero)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/User_talk%7ECaptainktainer_87c5.html"