User talk:ArglebargleIV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permanent link archiving :
Archive 1, through January 2007

Please add new comments at the bottom of this page, and sign them.
Although Wikipedia itself is not censored, I reserve the right to delete offensive obscenity and deliberately disruptive edits. If you're just complaining about me, though, I'll leave it on here, I've nothing to hide. (Except my real name, of course.) -- ArglebargleIV 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wrongly accused of spam - please help

You've reported us as spam, but we're not. Our blog is a legitimate source of TV news and interviews. In this edit here Shadowbot removed my URL from External links. We have dozens of interviews with celebrities that we'd like to post, many with celebrities that don't receive the attention they deserve. http://blog.meevee.com. Please unblock us or show me how to do it myself. I appreciate your time. -preppypunk shooshinboots [at] hotmail dot com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Preppypunk (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Thank you

You are welcome - no worries! I saw the new pages log after I deleted it the first time and thought it had been recreated by the creating user - it was much nicer to see that it was just having a tag put on it. Thanks for your diligence too. -- Natalya 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my user page after it was vandalized! Paxsimius 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Author Bibliography

First of all i didnt relieze that what i was doing was not allowed

secod i was wondering if it would be alright just to have the images next to the titles of the books and maybe the year it was published leaving out the text.--Salavat 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisks

I noticed you were wondering about the asterisks on several SeaWorld articles. They represent the named orca is deceased. Just passing on the information! SWF Senior Trainer 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Even though the asterisk system is used throughout SeaWorld and the orca community, I completely understand. I viewed the Kalina (whale) article and I absolutely love your idea regarding the decease references. Great job! SWF Senior Trainer 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitor/Carfiend

These two users appear to be separate actual users, but joined at the hip. Their behavior patterns are similar. We went through this with them last summer, and they seemed to go away in September, but they recently resurfaced, again totally focused on this one subject. In my opinion he/they are basically "trolls", or at least they exhibit "excessive" trolling behavior. They are good at starting edit wars and refusing to discuss things, then turning around and accusing everyone else of what they are guilty of. They are very good at pulling others into their game. I got sucked into it last summer, but I've tried to stay on the periphery of it this time and just watch the circus. Wahkeenah 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They do seem to be team editing and are thoroughly invested in the double standard. In particular Carfiend's edits (and their timing) during these past few weeks seem to be tactical appendages. I also notice, as Wahkeenah noted, that they seem to co-opt effective arguments and try to use them as their own - usually though, IMHO, they lack the ethical and authetically rational grounds that make those arguments effective and are left with mere choreography and unmoored rationales. I hesitate to say much more, as little pitchers have big ears and I'm sick of reading mockumentary versions of arguments and insights I hold as valid. By way of complete disclosure I initiated a RFC on Carfiend last summer as a result of the incidences that Wahkeenah desribes. The behavior which prompted the RFC is still apparent. Numskll 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You can say that again. The pattern is the same, except that this time it's Gravitor that's more the aggressor. The RFC on Carfiend died on the vine when the both of them disappeared in mid-September... apparently, waiting for the heat to die down so they could start their game again. Wahkeenah 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just having a discussion with User:Lunokhod, who is talking about doing an RFC on the content dispute. I think that's actually a "request for mediation", and that RFC's are about users, but I could be wrong. Meanwhile, some memories came back as I was telling him about the RFC and the request for mediation that both died when those guys disappeared in September... specifically, about the ridiculous debate over the "rendezvous" definition. Remember that? Anyway, once Carfiend was shown up by the facts, he went away, and took Gravitor (and some other red-link users with similar M.O.s) with him. For awhile. Wahkeenah 11:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Gravitor managed to suck Numskll into a set of 3-revert-violations, and they have both been blocked for 24 hours, by separate admins. My guess is that they each went to separate admins to complain about the other. Such a to-do. Wahkeenah 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And by the looks of Gravitor's talk page, he's learned nothing. He continues to delete stuff from his talk page that he doesn't like (calling it "trolling", as Carfiend did in similar circumstances last summer) and continues to parrot the sockpuppet question by accusing several of us of same. (I don't speak for anyone else here, but *I* don't do sockpuppets.) Wahkeenah 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3RR warning

Thanks. This is me trying to take your advice. I apologize for the inconvenience. The issue of content vs authority is so maddening though - especially given wholely user defined (and collaborative) topics and the range of motives at play. I'm working on more effective rhetorical strategems . . . I'll try (without actually promising) not to always be such a pain. Numskll 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your efforts on Independent evidence

I appreciate your efforts to make progress on this page, and am trying to assume your good faith, but so far the process has resulted in a total revert on the issues without any rational justification on the talk page. Please take a look at my concerns, Thanks, Gravitor 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Not one piece of evidence on the page is presented by "proponents of the theory that the Moon landings did not happen). None of the sources that the evidence come from have anything to do with the hoax.
2. Not one piece of evidence on the page was collected as a rebuttal to the hoax. In fact, nearly all of it (perhaps all) was collected before the hoax accusations were even made. To present this as part of a back-and-forth between the hoax proponents and landing defenders is a gross misrepresentation.
3. The people who collected this evidence are independent observatories and amateur astronomers. They collected it for their own reasons, certainly not as part of the hoax discussion.
4 The discussions on Wikipedia that produced this page are not a good reason to structure the information.
Did you manage to take a look at this? Thanks, Gravitor 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, just thought you might want to check your edit summaries; I think something is broken. Thanks – Qxz 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <deleted>

Obscenity deleted by ArglebargleIV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.24.62 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

In the Watergate era, the expression "Expletive deleted" was a hot catchphrase for awhile. It's still good. :) Wahkeenah 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Darn, I should have used that! And I was even around then (although still in elementary school), I should have remembered it. Oh well. :-) -- ArglebargleIV 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Xiao De Xian

Yes i know what u mean whit the ID thing about her. But i was actually sure that is was her. In the book there is no source to that bit of text. Sterling Seagrave wrote that there was an ancestor painting of Empress Xiao Zhen Xian. He also wrote how the painting looks like and by that i thought it was actually Empress Xiao De Xian. He says that she had a pointy chin and a dreamly look and if u look closely to the painting "i have got a much bigger and better version of it" u can see what i mean. But sometime it's very difficult to give reference cause a lot of chinese history is based on rumours. But anyway we can discuss about it:). (Read the book it's very good. ) It's called the Dragon Lady by Sterling Seagrave ISBN 0-679-40230-6

But one thing is sure, There is no ancestor painting of Empress Xiao Zhen Xian so it must be someone else.


[edit] Read before you call some a vandal

Hey Jackass, John Renold Aufenstein was cited. It was erased because someone put an offensive name, calling him gay. Instead of reverting, they deleted the name

You see the little 1 in brackets?

ITS A CITATION.

Try clicking on it and seeing the reference next time.

Thank you.

63.136.116.166 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Oh, wow. I'm glad you could spend your time on worrying about c's page, even enough to ask a reference who submitted it, and if someone disagrees with you, which seems to be quite a few people, you could always call them vandals. Nothing like threating an anonymous user with a non-static ip (or dynamic... it changes whenever they log out).

Sorry if you failed your book report on Ryan Seacrest because someone cited another website and reveled that Seacrest's name was actually ethnic. Now what will America do if they found out.

Maybe you're right, we should cover it up and erases any traces of it. What will we do if he says "Aufenstein, out"

Pandemonium, I tell you.

But then again, someone will always know and make elaborate clues to get to the truth and Dan Brown will write a novel about it. I think he'll go for The Arglebargle Code or Arglebargles and Dynamic63.136.116.166s

63.136.116.166 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Wow, it took a whole two seconds to think up what i wrote, but i guess 2 seconds of thinking is just plain unhealthy. It seems to me that most vandalism on seacrest is about his sexual orientation... I guess someone decided to go to IMDb and make up a name, solely to place it on here... A name that sounds Jewish...

We'll I see how calling him gay with John Dicksuck Fagenstein and an ethnic name with no gay name calling are alike. Gay, Jewish... same thing, right?

63.136.116.166 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the reversion

I got a little carried away. Normally I would only revert a user page, not a user's talk page. Feel free to delete this, though. :) Wahkeenah 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hi Argle, for future reference, it's not a good idea to place warning templates on the pages of established editors, or to accuse them of vandalism, as you did here. It's best to assume good faith of people who've been contributing for a long time, and if you feel you have to comment on an edit from a long-term contributor, always best to leave a personal note. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Aircraft Industries

I am a former employeee so I have personal experience. Please don't delete that again, it needs to be said.--Kanekutter05 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted nothing, and I am the source because as I said I AM A FORMER EMPLOYEE. Stop deleting information about a company that you have absolutely no idea about.--Kanekutter05 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, this is ridiculous and you are ridiculous.--Kanekutter05 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So according to yours and wikipedias reasoning, anything that is not sourced should not be in an article. Then why do I get the same crap for taking things that are not sourced out of articles? Its the exact same thing you are doing, yet Im the only one getting bitched at.--Kanekutter05 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted namecalling comment by Jingiya

[edit] FinancialContent, Inc. Dispute

This isn't a spam promotion - we're just putting up info on when the company was founded and what it is factually, however I feel that a speedy deletion is being made to quickly.

The page in question is Financial Content and FinancialContent, Inc. - i'd prefer to use the latter.

Other companies, such as AccuWeather, have done the same thing we are trying to do.

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page, I really appreciate it! --Niohe 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk • contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from my user page

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created for, and by, the people. "Wiki-bullies" who view themselves righteous enforcers of "wiki-law" undermine their own supposed beliefs. If you really want to be an encyclopedia editor, GET A REAL JOB WITH A REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT WORLD BOOK.

WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND MUST NOT BE POLICED BY PSEUDO-ENFORCERS.

Just because there is no real-world law regarding wikipedia, why must you create one for yourself? Why must you always seek to gain power? Can you no longer be content with being an equal; a peer? Your power-hungry behavior is an animosity, echoing the behavior of countless other unwanted enforcers who drew themselves to power.

Grow up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quickfastgoninja (talk • contribs).

[edit] Reply

Apologies for no sig; I can't find the tildes on my laptop - not even kidding. Thought I was on your talk page earlier; D'oh! -quickfastgoninja

[edit] Stop removing my reference links

These are legitimate interviews on pornconfidential.com No one is spamming. Please stop —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pornlover (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Gilberto Silva goals

Hi ArglebargleIV

I saw your message on the Gilberto Silva goals page and I wanted to just leave a message to say a couple of things. First, I'm not angry at all that you've marked the page for deletion. The work you do keeps Wikipedia a tidy and clean place. I also anticipated that the article may be marked for deletion, because as you said, it is the first of its kind for any football|soccer player on Wikipedia. However, I ask you to listen to my points as to why this article should remain on Wikipedia, since they were what made me think the article should be created in the first place.

  • This is the most comprehensive football|soccer player's article on Wikipedia, and just because Pele's article is not so comprehensive, it shouldn't mean that others are limited to its size. It seems like an unnecessary bottleneck.
  • The goals which Gilberto have scored are encyclopaedic information
  • The information which is listed on Gilberto Silva goals was listed on his main article (Gilberto Silva) for a number of months, proving it is indeed fit for Wikipedia, and...
  • It was only moved to a separate page because it was too chunky for its parent page. If the goals page is deleted, the information will only be pasted back onto the main article; I feel that would be less tidy/organized that it having its own page.
  • The reason Pele doesn't have his own goal page (or table) is due to the sheer number of goals that Gilberto scored. Some of the details of the goals are probably lost to history. Gilberto will only ever score about 50 goals, and they are all fairly recent, so his page can exist quite easily. The information is readily available. This is not to say that just the fact that Gilberto has scored LESS goals than most allows him to have his own goal page. Quite the opposite. There is even more reason that Pele should have his own page; the only reason that he doesn't though, is that nobody is willing (or able?) to compile a list of his many hundreds of career goals. This is a first step to more comprehensive soccer player articles; it shows editors a new added level of useful detail which can be attained.
  • Maybe Gilberto's goal page will lead to Pele (and other notable footballers) having their own statistics/goal pages. Maybe not. But the fact that no other editors have taken the time to compile such lists which require their own pages, surely does not mean that those editors which have, cannot have their pages exist.
  • Some Basketball and American Football players do have their own 'statistics' pages. See Career achievements of Dwyane Wade or Career achievements of Michael Jordan. True, this page isn't on the same scale as said career achievements pages, but the fact that Gilberto is so much less famous means his small goals page is correct to scale.

Wow! I typed a lot. I apologise. Thank you for reading, and I appreciate your comments, whether they are for or against the article's existence.

All the best, and keep up the good work. -GilbertoSilvaFan 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear ArglebargleIV... what can I say... thanks! I appreciate how willing you've been to hear my arguments. I've seen that a lot of people have been angry at you for your work, but you've shown that if people approach you in a decent manner, you're very accommodating. All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Speedy

No, you tagging it as speedy is not 3RR, it clearly qualifies. If he keeps recreating it that is disruption, I will have to deal with this when I get back as I'm leaving for class right now, feel free to tag it again though. VegaDark 21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramana (film)

Unfortuately when you moved it you also moved to speedy deletion request too. Thanks! - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nonsense edits by user Bantilan

Hi there;

You've previously flagged the user "Bantilan" for adding nonsense ... it looks like he's at it again from an anonymous IP address ... maybe you could request that this guy's IP address get blocked? Still figuring out how to do this kind of thing myself ... thanks. Here's the edit history page for his IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.60.189.62


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. We make a good anti-vandal team.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Bullock

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I should have noticed the difference between having notability and asserting notability -- thanks for the correction and the advice! -- ArglebargleIV 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Info

  • Please stop putting inflated sales for Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys' albums. And I got the correct info from Billboard and RIAA for the List of USA's highest selling albums list, so everything I put is fine.LAUGH90 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Penrith

Hi, I note that at the article Westfield Penrith you recently reverted an IP edit with the edit comment you copied from User:Betacommand - removing external link: *.gpt.com.au -- per external link guidelines. Unfortunately, in this case, User:Betacommand was not in line with WP:EL as the link removed was the only reference for this article - an inline citation pointing to the website of the 1/2 owner of this complex. A primary reference beats no reference at all. Please don't remove inline citations under the edit comment of complying with WP:EL, which relates to excessive links in an external links section (such as bands linking their official site as well as their myspace page and their forum page and their page on google images...).

I have:

  • restored the inline citation
  • verified that it is appropriate source for this article
  • inserted additional information from this source.

Thanks, Garrie 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned about ending up in a revert war over an external link. Sometimes IP edits are worth keeping but I know I revert a lot more IP than signed-in edits myself... Garrie 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fafarazzi

I added more info about fafarazzi, a few citings of it's history, and a link to a google search on it on the discussion page. That should be enough for notability.--Twintone 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Release

I would like to know why you went ahead with the deletion of the page I created. As I stated, I was working very hard on this page in order to make it less of an "advertisement" as you called it. Now I have to start over again. Please alert me before you do this again.

Smthorpe 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool guy came back

Please check Special:Contributions/Ken doenges. I cannot really justify speedy deletion - once we remove his name from the articles they cease to be spam. But if you think they need AfD, go ahead. -- RHaworth 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note from User:Lloyd Shaw

You seem to have an issue with an article about "Vibration Training". Very similar to Pilates it should at least have a reference here at Wikipedia. With no bias. Please explain exactly why you did this. As no group , company or person was promoted as per the rules. Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lloyd Shaw (talk • contribs). Moved from the top, where user:Lloyd Shaw had deleted a comment to put it in -- ArglebargleIV 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Question about deleted Vibration training article

Re your message: The article was a personal essay that was spam and also a conflict of interest. If you do a Google search for the author's name and vibration training, you'll see what I mean. Most of the article was clipped out of forum posts so it could be seen as a copyright violation, too. I'd prefer not to restore the article as if I did, it could be seen as a copyright violation for reposting material that Wikipedia can't post. While the topic might be notable, the article in the form it was posted was not going to work nor do I think it was particularly salvageable as it would have to be completely rewritten to meet usual standards. -- Gogo Dodo 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/g/User_talk%7EArglebargleIV_f9e0.html"