User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Carter County, Tennessee 3 db-ad criteria 4 Srebrenica Genocide Denial article 5 MADURA 6 Makemytrip 7 Mariana Sansón Argüello 8 Walter Dew 9 February 2008 10 Your editing

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page..just leave a note & I'll try to respond as soon as I can.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Carter County, Tennessee

Hm, interesting points. I'm not really an expert on the issue, but maybe it means the first settlement outside what is today the borders of the 13 colonies? But even that seems crazy, I'm sure somebody settled in West Virginia or something before that. Maybe ask at the Tennessee and North Carolina wikiprojects? --AW (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Garden. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Malinaccier (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my edits..please see your talk page...Berean Hunter (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry and don't worry. I thought you were adding that little poem! I was simply trying to remove it myself. Ha, well it's all over and done. Thanks for being understanding! Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The smile is nice ;D, and you're doing fine right now—keep it up! Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

db-ad criteria

Please be more sparing in your application of speedy tags for advertising. The article about last September's NYFW is actually about one of the most important events in fashion (no less, than say the 2008 golden globes is in film), which you could have found if you clicked through to the general article about New York Fashion Week. The article contained no advertising language and was simply a list of designers. The db-ad tag is supposed to be used where there's no question that something is an ad, and it should be sparingly applied especially because we don't want to bite the newbies. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on my talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide Denial article

I'm just working on it.I agreed with user Bosniak to do the artice,because there are some journalists that continue to deny the Genocide. This artice is ment to let people know that those kind of sick people exist.And that the have some marginal support. In the article i want to point out that there is apsolutly no doubt that it didn't happen.

I'm sourcing it as we speak. I just need a little time because i'm doing my first article ok???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles should be about the facts of the events and then you let those speak for themselves. You are trying to attack the people listed in the bottom. That isn't a neutral point of view. Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No,i didn't try to attack them.On the articles about those people that denial is mentioned as well. Now the article is gone and so are 2 and a half hours of work:((( I was going to post 20+ sources

we'll than i'll stop creating articles at all and just give it to someone else....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) There wereeven a few law suits against some people for libel.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your page shouldn't be gone...by all means, bring the sources forward..but the pages for the individuals do not appear to backup your assertions.Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah,i've noticed that it was still there.thx.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MADURA

Dear Sir,

I m really surprised by the deletion process you started, The rule is that companies appears in companies categories the page i created is informative and describe the activity of a Brand, you can find exactly the same kind of companies listed in wikipedia such as L'occitane, Darty, Celio.... (all having their HQ in France)

If you think I should make some changes on the page, I will be glad to do it

This page is for sure not a Major important page for wikipedia, but I m sure you know that there is lot of non major articles in an encyclopedia, and even more in wikipedia

This Page , in its french version, has been granted in the french version of wikipedia,

Sincerely yours

Tayone (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Tayone

Hello Tayone,

The article is clearly an ad and includes text as such. It is unfortunate that it was included in the French version because that means the editors missed it. It contains the following text...

"Madura products will let you create the interior of which you’ve always dreamed . You will be able to transform your living environment whenever you want, however you want. Chic, harmonious,original, but most importantly, practical, Madura products will enable you to discover a whole new concept of home decoration."

No amount of cleanup for an article will justify self-promotion...wikipedia isn't the place for this...Berean Hunter (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Berean,

Yes, you re right, actually, i should have make the text myself , as more informative, instead of using an existing text, mea culpa, I will submit you a revised version, also, could you explain me the presence of the quoted brands then?

I m just a fan of this brand which I ve been buying from since 13 years and I dont see why it should be less represented than others....

Sincerely yours Jill

Tayone (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Tayone

Hi Jill,

Actually, if you visit Celio and check the page history from the beginning, you will see that it was tagged for speedy deletion and went through this process.It may be enlightening to you to go back through and study the edits and how the article transformed. The article is very poorly written, however it isn't an ad, so at least it gets to stay on Wikipedia for the time being. If I, or any other Wikipedia editor, find advertising then we tag it, new or not. Wikipedia tries to be fair.

The other two articles have edits from the beginning that are also worth noting..no ad texts.

You could try improving the Celio article..English usage & grammar could definitely be improved there. Cheers Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Makemytrip

I took a look at the new article. There's at least an assertion of notability, so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion right now. However, I also don't think it's notable, so I've proposed deletion of the article. Thanks for letting me know it was recreated. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

122.160.223.55 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)I created the article bit informative and added few online reference.

You removed the template..Please do not remove the template for Deletion again! Only administrators are supposed to do that. If you remove it, any edits that you do afterwards will be undone. If you want your edits to stick while the article is being considered, leave the AfD alone. Thank you, Berean Hunter (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mariana Sansón Argüello

I was just able to glean enough from some of the Spanish-language links to at least agree the salient point, that she's a poet. At this point, I think the article needs expansion, but it is a viable stub at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Walter Dew

Hi. I'm adding...I've given up trying to repair, it just gets reverted again! Haven't used Twinkle before...will have a look at it. Jack1956 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Peter Sutcliffe, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Peter Sutcliffe, you will be blocked from editing. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my edits...please see your talk page as well as the one for the article. Please check my contribs and the history of that article and you will see that I revert vandalism not make it.

The original source that I have been trying to add has the ***'s intact! According to WP:Profanity, you do use those. This isn't censorship.

I'm trying to just add the citation and people won't leave it alone long enough for me to do it...go read the talk page..and I the only one that follows correct procedure?

Article is here [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943730/posts Sutcliffe stabbed]

Now the link needs to be cleaned up but I won't touch it..at least not now...Berean Hunter (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your editing

Please keep in mind the three revert rule when editing, specifically editing at Peter Sutcliffe. You made the following reverts to that page within a 24-hour period: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please stop edit warring, or you could be blocked. Instead of constant reverting, please try and discuss changes with users on their talk page, or the articles' talk page. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, revert 1 put the article where it was supposed to be per the guidelines. I wrote why on the talk page before I ever reverted it. Next, I went out looking for a source so that the issue could be addressed..found a few..all had ***'s and none actually used uncensored language (but that might exist). I tried to decide which source was best and then returned to the article.

I found that I had been reverted by someone who didn't read the talk page..I reverted so that the stars would be there as I add the citation...people began tramping on me and making accusations of vandalism. I'm not. I now invite you to review my edits for Wikipedia. No one seems to be getting it. I am new but thought that I was making positive contributions. Now I've got a talk page that reads like I'm a vandal...maybe this isn't for me.Berean Hunter (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, I reviewed your edits before leaving the above message. I don't believe your most recent edits are vandalism, however, it is a content dispute, and edit warring does not solve anything. Please, discuss the changes on the articles talk page, and with the users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Number 3 in your cited list was an attempt to put a proper citation in place...I waited, thinking some Admin would be smart enough to figure it out, but they haven't yet. I wrote to the talk page with my reasons and actually did that BEFORE I did the first edit...I also posted there afterwards. Nobody else has...I was the only one actually doing what they were supposed to.

I cited WP:RSUE for the first revert. The Admin cited back my own reason (makes him look like he doesn't get it). The operative word being TRUMPS our style guidelines (THAT MEANS YOU DO ADD THE STARS!!!). No Admin bothered to see that I was putting the article to the same place it was before that day...yep, it always had the stars until Blammermouth decided (without a source) to change it and announce that "We don't censor Wikipedia". Well, no one was..I followed up after the revert to find a citation. They exist, none of those people who were willing to shout "Vandal" on that day have followed up..no Admin just tried to look at it?

I'm no article crusader and couldn't give a damn about the article..I just thought I was doing the right thing. Did I mention that I'm not a fucking prude either! No censor here...but also no longer a Wikipedian either. I foolishly believed in buy-in & collegiality and more foolishly believed I was doing some form of volunteerism towards a good cause. I thought that vandal tags were hung on obvious vandals. I'm not one and have explained myself but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears...well, if I were volunteering at a local charity and they accuse me of being a vandal, and then I explain myself but they still don't see, there is nothing to do but leave...

The spirit of editing was sort of sapped out of me. With a clobbered reputation, there is nothing to do. I won't spend my energies defending myself in the future because these tags were hung here...it would lead to extra accusations on me..No thanks. My edit history doesn't bear up to being a vandal..and now I'm too afraid to touch any article.

As I get older I notice how much harder everything gets...I have to put a lot more effort into things to get the same results..actually lesser results. I felt terrible when the vandal badge was hung on me..ruined an otherwise good day. It has bothered me ever since. Something I'm doing to try to contribute shouldn't make me feel that badly...

I appreciate the opportunity to have edited and I'm sure I'll continue to enjoy reading Wikipedia articles in the future.

Thank you Berean Hunter (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider. You are a valued contributor, and I for one have appreciated your contributions. Jack1956 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You are more than welcome. Jack1956 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)