User talk:Calton/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 1 wrong assumption

I'll let you in on a little secret. I, StitchPedia, am the creator of the Madagascar 3 article. However, I did NOT create the Ice Age 3 & Shrek 4 articles. I only edited them. I apologize if this comment insulted you.

[edit] Shane Cubis

Unless you have any objections, I'm going to go ahead and remove the db-repost from the talk page, since it isn't reposted content, but rather discussion related to his notability. Might as well let them discuss it. — TheKMantalk 07:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid and contagious

This page that you prodded had the prod tag removed by the creator. Thought you might want to know in case you wanted to put it up for AfD. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Reserve Bank

Hi Calton. I took a bit of a numerical gamble to delete it despite lacking strong numerical support, based mainly on your rebuttal. I tend to ignore the numbers a bit if the arguments are rebutted. When are you going to become admin?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should definitely run. You are a good AfD debater, have lots of experience, and there are massive backlogs for things needing to be deleted. I've deleted 800 in two weeks of sysop, and always more help is needed. All the deletion-processors have disappeared.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Warning this Carlton should never be admin, please God help us to stop that!!!--Swedenborg 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Wallace

You noted on Paul Wallace's AfD that you know the guy. How do you know him? I (unfortunately) know him, too. --Davidstrauss 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Slur

You made an extreme racial slur on this edit comment: [1] I think an apology is in order, this remark was HIGHLY offensive and TOTALLY uncalled for. TruthCrusader 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[2] 24.224.158.166 06:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] language in edit summaries

[3] Please refrain from using the term "Buckwheat" in edit summaries as it is considered a racial slur. Tim! 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Reserve Bank Deleted..

Hi,

Thanks for your support in this voting... somehow it was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so many Keep votes and so pore arguments for delete?? Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank --Swedenborg 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I still have not got one singel clear and good argument why an excisting Non Governmental Organization like GRB should not be an article on Wikipedia? This wikislang and arrogant approch that is followed after a article about GRB that was posted by someone, dont know who, for 5 years before deleted with 2 delete votes... its outside my understanding why this is a problem for some influent Wiki users?.... --Swedenborg 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You still did not get it right?

In the deleting process you wrote: Nope, completely got the point: you're saying something said on a Blogspot blog constitutes some sort of firm evidence that what you claim is true. It isn't the least bit reliable as evidence for anything here, even if the claim were "The sun rises in the east"

Well it was the link from my blog leading to the source and if you would have any slightest knowledge in the subject you would see on that webpage (not the blog) that Global Resource Bank is a NGO with more then 3000 registered users and with registered activites for more then 30 years, that and other evidence of its exicistens should be more then enough for a reason to start buld an article on this NGO.... --Swedenborg 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-fanfilm bias?

As regards the proposed deletion of the fanfilm Hidden Frontier, you said: 'Delete A "well-respected and popular fanfilm series" sounds like a contradiction in terms almost. More to the point, how the hell do you measure whether a fanfilm is "well-respected and popular"?'

Your first statement implies that you believe that a fanfilm series cannot possibly be either well-respected, nor popular. I point out that "Grayson", "Batman vs. Predator", and "World's Finest" are all both respected and popular. So is the Star Wars parody "Pink Five".

In answer to your question, if one is unwilling to accept articles by Variety or Columbia University's School of Journalism as indicators of either respect or popularity, then one has to work a little. A relatively easy way is to set up a poll in relatively neutral territory (with respect to the fanfilm under question). A somewhat harder way, but more qualitative, is to do a Google search on the fanfilm in question. There, one notes the number of positive comments vs. negative comments, looks for links pointing to the fanfilm site (or, conversely, to hate sites), read reviews online both good and bad, and using that information, along with the number of hits generated on Google, one can form an opinion as to whether a fan film can be either respected or popular.

One might then share those results with similar researchers to see if there is some sort of concensus between the researchers.

Assuming that your question was not, in fact, rhetorical, that's how I would do it. Your mileage may vary, as the saying goes. JohnWhiting 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dean Lesher and Contra Costa Times

Thanks for your input! I'm still a bit wet behind the ears, and I was wondering about that edit you made to my intro already. I also ran across the edits you made to the CCTimes article, and I have to say, I'm starting to admire you. Anyway, thanks. Luna Santin 09:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mallory Lewis

I have removed the prod that you put up. I listed MORE than enough proof of her notability (unless you discount being sent by the USO, and the US Airforce on Goodwill visits, or you ignore the big USA Today article). In the future I humbly suggest you do some RESEARCH on the articles you want deleted instead of just firing off your great big gun 'o deletetion. Have a great day! TruthCrusader 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Uncivil remarks

If you do NOT stop with the uncivil remarks in response to mine or other editor's comments I will be forced to take this matter to arbitration. TruthCrusader 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cal Dining

Campus-cruft? I wrote a comment on the talk page in response to this comment. Also I was not using the nitpicking of the nomination to defend the article, merely pointing it out. I beleive the article can stand on its own notability, please do go back and take a look before you write it off as "campus cruft." You will find the newest version here. Please note the sources citied, such as the Contra Costa Times, a legitimate news source and an article on wiki that even you have edited. Thanks for listening and I really do appreaciate your comments, as I am a new editor and still figuring out the ropes. Presidank 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article should be kept or deleted because other "unimportant" articles exsist, I am saying please consider those for deletion as well. And did you honestly read the entire article? Presidank 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nw hbby, prhps?

Cn tll y'r lnly nd nd smthng t d, bt myb y shld tk p smthng thr thn flmng / trllng? Y'r grwn mn, rght? Myb y ght t gt wf y cn yll t r smthng. R prhps y cn gt dg y cn bt p. --Primetime 05:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Actually Mr Indefinitely Banned Plagiarist's sockpuppet, Aulus Vitellius (talk · contribs) - disemvoweled 20 June)

[edit] Director templates

They were basically speedied (slowly) following [[4]]. (Looks like another has risen from the dead also.) But that was almost a year ago, and the templates have lived undamaged for some months now, so I'm reluctant to speedy them again. That said, the arguments for deletion remain valid: they are categorified and, if the templates were completed, they'd be in the Massive Ungainly Excuse for Content class. So perhaps a new TfD? (And, oh my god, we should forbid the use of black in templates, immediately.) -Splash - tk 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Hi Calton,

Changes have been made in the Biopsychiatry controversy article. Perhaps you may want to remove the OR tag?

—Cesar Tort 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Further context changes have been done to the article, which doesn’t contain Original Research. It’s time to remove the OR tag. Any objections? —Cesar Tort 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from Craigslist

Are you the Chad Alton who keeps getting banned from Craigslist? N. Harmon 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong person. Seriously I know someone on a different website whose name is Chad Alton, and he is a pretty cool guy except he keeps getting banned from Craigslist. You're not him. I wonder if he uses Wikipedia. Anyway....um...thats my momma! N. Harmon 13:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a lower threshold

Thnks fr yr cmmnts. ctlly, whn vt kp n rtcls, dn't s my kn t ll, lthgh 'm sr mny ppl wll vw m s jrk. Bt d rd th rtcl, nd thnk bt t, nd crtnly hv nt vtd kp n yr pnts r nyn ls's fd... tht s yr xmpl, nt n hv vr vtd `kp' n. Y hv mplyd n rrlvnt xggrtn t vd srs dscssn. ndd wld nt bthr t vt thr wy shld fnd yr pnts s n rtcl, 'd mv n t smthng vwd s mr mprtnt. smply hv vry dffrnt thrshld thn mny (bt nt ll) Wkpdns whn d dcd t vt... dn't thnk th cnsqncs f th vst spc vlbl fr txt rtcls n mdrn dt srvrs hv flly prcltd thrgh vryn's mnds yt. snug 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thnks fr yr frthr cmmnts. stll blv y r mplyng xggrtn t vd srs dscssn; mny f nt mst f th `dlt' vts s mch shrtr phrss thn m, nd ls mny f th `dlt' vts r rddld wth slppnss nd mstks. Th dffrnc btwn `dlt' nd `kp' s tht mplmnttn f th `dlt' flshs th nfrmtn, s ctlly, `dlt' shld b fr mr crflly rsnd thn `kp'. 'm sr y'v ntcd tht my kp vts r plcd n vry smll frctn f ll th rtcls p fr dscssn. Bt y r f crs nttld t yr vws, nd m nttld t dsgr wth y. snug 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Disemvoweled for gnomic bogosity, 20 June 2006 - See [5] and [6])

[edit] Farley

Doing a spelling check to correct instances of "writting", and was unable to work out whether "Orwell, a feral cat in Golden Gate Park who always is trying to get rich, sometimes by writting Vice President Dick Cheney." means:

  1. ...sometimes by writing to VP ..., or
  2. ...sometimes by taking out a writ against VP ...

Could you update the article to clarify?

--Dunstan talk 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cal dining

You're right. And hell, this wasn't even the last AfD I closed, there was another AfD that was chock full of "this is the user's only edit" votes. I really don't know how I could have missed all that. Thanks for pointing out my complete fuck up. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chalk it up to blindness, brain cramps, a desire to close off a day when I should be sleeping, who knows? I'd better correct the last problem and get back to sleep (the first two, unfortunately, are likely to be permanent). G'night! --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bushell

I had an email from the guy who was the subject of the article (new to Wikipedia) giving me some background. He also pointed me in the direction of some references etc. So I restored it, because I'm happy there's now enough verification/notability. I'll put a note on the talk page. And I did give an explanation to the guy who nominated the article for deletion. I didn't realise I'd also have to let you know. Proto///type 10:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting emails left, right and centre from both sides of the discussion now. I need to figure this out. Proto///type 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Half the reason the article was deleted was a lack of refs for various claims. I was sent the refs following deletion. As the deletion itself was in process, it isn't a DRV case - DRV is for process review, not content. Recreating articles after finding new info is commonplace. And I changed my mind after the restore - should I have redeleted it then restored it so the edit summary was ok? Proto///type 22:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slainte

Dude, I've meant to say this before but don't think I ever got round to it, I seriously love your work. DON'T EVER CHANGE. I'm giving you a bottle of whisky because a) it reminds me of home, b) I think we'd enjoy getting smashed together, c) living in the far east demands high levels of drinking (liver of experience talking), d) Calton Studios is a great club in Edinburgh (Calton Hill is, however, the gay cruising zone) and e) surely one day we'll be celebrating / drowning sorrows at Calton's RfA afterparty. Nice one. Deizio talk 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bushell again

I've userfied it while I try and get to the bottom of it. I'm waiting for a few emails to be replied to. User:Lqcinncinatus/Andrew Bushell. Proto///type 06:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And now I've redeleted it, as the subject of the article decided he no longer wanted it on his user space. Bluuurgh. Proto///type 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection Tags

I apologize. I was not aware that granting protection is the exclusive ability of administrators. I assure you, though, that my intentions were good; User:Harper32 had vandalized the article, and it had been deleted without being discussed. PLEASE comment about this on my page, as I am concerned.

Joan53 04:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Joan53

You truly misunderstand me, though I doubt you believe it. I discounted WillC's statement about my being unable to block a page, because he is given to rather bellicose grandstanding and often uses fallacies in logic to justify his arguments (see the Maryland Talk Page for first-hand evidence of this). And did you happen to see why my Administrator Application was rejected? I filled out the form incorrectly. I honestly was not aware that I wasn't allowed to use protection tags. However, I would still ask you to allow discussion on the articles in questions, as other Wikipedians are able to recognize their historical value. I would suggest bringing up any issues with the author.

Joan53 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)JOan53

You know, I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you and you're just being arrogant. Notice this comment on my User Page: "Hi your RFA was removed because you did it wrong, I advise you not do to a RFA into you get a few months of active editing and about 2,000 edits under your belt and a userpage as we do have RFA standards and currently your RFA won't pass with under 50 edits. I hope you understand :) Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)"

What conceivable reason could I have to lie to you? This is ridiculous, and I'd appreciate a bit of respect. I genuinely asked for your help and feel as if you're looking down your nose at me. I taught history for thirty years in Maryland schools and have probably been involved with the topic for longer than you've been alive. Don't disparage my opinions or question my motives.

Joan53 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Joan53

[edit] C&C how-to cruft

I found a bunch more, via Command and Conquer - check out the handy templates at the bototm, which list all the 'articles' about units, structures, and so on. I think there's enough in one nomination, though, as adding too many in one go tends to muddy the waters. Proto///type 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change Superelevation into a Redirect, Please

Rather than completely deleting the Superelevation item, can it be changes into a Redirect to Cant (rail)?

Tabletop 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete

I saw that your attempt to speedy delete Dr. Albert Benner was removed. FYI: I found that it was copied from another website and put it up for speedy d again. -Medtopic 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph White

What is your problem with this article? It is completely neutral and provides excellent information. I have already received many comments on how useful the information was. -NYC2TLV 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You just might have ruined the entire subject as it is being debated by peoplewho know nothing about the case and probably have little to nothing to do with New Jersey. Thanks a lot Mr. Wikipedia policeman. -NYC2TLV 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's back

  • Worldwide pirate parties
  • Pirate Party (US)

If I'm not mistaken, you put the PPUS up for deletion the last time... it seems it's been recreated, FYI.

[edit] Pirate Party USA

Before you suggest I've created something, how about checking the page history. --Dweller 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you inform me? I mean, I'd be glad to help at anytime, I was just a little confused why you contacted me. Just the first name that came to mind? Oh well. See you around. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Maybe I am just missing something, but I don't see my name on the deletion log. Maybe it was under a different name. But no matter, the deed got done. Thanks for your help in keeping WP free of clutter. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor here, but this does make me believe I probably have deleted it under a different name. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
A-ha! It was here. Ignore my mindless ramblings above. ;-) I'll quit bothering you now. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hold your horses

Excuse me, with all do respect to those that have been using Wikipedia, I think that it is unfair to discredit people that have used Wikipedia for years but only now have decided to get involved since something that bothers them could happen. I don't think that votes by newer users should have less of a count than the old ones.

Do you agree with me?

-NYC2TLV posted on the 27 of June

[edit] Spacetrek

I'm wondering how those lists qualify as empty? Don't worry - I deleted 500 yesterday -I'm not scared of deleting stuff - but how is that a speedy?Blnguyen | rant-line 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin Tuteao

I am an admin, and the article does assert notability. You can only speedy delete an article as {{db-bio}} if it does not assert notability. This one clearly does assert it. It may still be non-notable, but you need to use Prod or AfD. Gwernol 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your violation of copyright policy

Please do not violate WP:EL, which clearly states that we may not link to copyvios. I have explained the situation at Talk:Scientology. --Rob 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question on the page "Retrofire"

May I ask for the reasoning behind the labels thrown on the page? I have made my own points about this on the discussion page for that site, and I think its a legit page in that effect. - LorenzoD


[edit] NPR mediation

Hi. User:MSTCrow has requested a mediation at Talk:National Public Radio. It would be very helpful if you could participate. Cheers! David L Rattigan 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bonchune Article

Do you take me for a liar. I did heavy research on this...you didn't. Open your eyes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Watson (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 June 2006

[edit] Copyvio

Hello, I was just wondering what was in violation of copyrights when you made this edit. I'm just curious. Thanks, Chuck(contrib) 03:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chuck(contrib) 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ak' Sent

Yes it WILL be released in the United States on September 26th. It was originally scheduled to be releaed on June 20th, but was pushed back due to record label drama. The album was recently released, on June 27th in Japan only. She has been featured on NBA V 3.0 and on the soundtrack to the film Coach Carter. Still a need for speedy deletion? Xm2631 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

September 20th is a confirmed USA release date from Capitol Records PR. Thanks Xm2631 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The research for Robert Bonchune

If you go on a search engine, it has Robert Bonchunes name for winning the VES award for animating the character 'Nimrod' on Surface.(like it says on his website)Plus I know this guy. He is the one who told me he quit Eden FX. I have some emails of his as proof to knowing him. Why do I need to research if I know him? --Jonathan Watson 11:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Watson

[edit] Worldcat

I was intrigued by your citation of WorldCat on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Deceived so I looked them up, but according to this page [7], they do not yet provide public access. Is there a way to search their database without going to a library/being a subscriber?--Fuhghettaboutit 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Marlowe

Re. hoax, see User:Tyrenius/Satchel_Cohen_hoaxer. Also Theodore Masley re. your Prod. --Tyrenius 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Talk:Logos of the Walt Disney Company

Hello,

as you're the person who speedy tagged it (I realize you didn't delete it): I've undeleted this talk page as there's ongoing discussion about the deletion. CSD G8 explicitly states that talk pages of deleted pages should not be deleted if there is "deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article", both of which is the case here.--Eloquence* 13:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why did you redirect the Wall Walking article into the parkour article? Wall walking is definitely different from parkour and it has its own special attributes. - Bagel7 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That logic doesn't follow very well. If I compare karate to martial arts, like "Karate is a form of martial arts" or "Karate is related to martial arts" does that mean we should incorporate the huge karate article into the martial arts one? Of course not. - Bagel7 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey, remember WP:CIVIL? Dont just delete it, please allow it to remain a separate article. My argument was for restoring the article as an independent entity. It has enough information on its own to be an article. Please restore it. - Bagel7 14:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, it just seemed like you said "speedy delete it is" and didn't want to hear my side of things anymore. I was trying to keep this conversation civil and intelligent. By the way, can I copy that list? I actually like it. It's funny.

[edit] Matteo Rosselli

  1. User pages are not a Wikipedia form of MySpace.
  2. Cutting-and-pasting violates the GFDL.
  3. If you "knew the article Matteo Rosselli which was written by Kpirouz was likely to be deleted", then you're well aware that you're attempting an end-run around speedy-deletion criteria and basic bio standards -- and so is anyone else seeing what you're doing. --Calton | Talk 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfying pages that do not meet Wikipedia criteria for encyclopedia articles is a long-established option. It should be done more often as a way of not biting the newbie. It is not likely that a new user would know that the option of userfying a deleted page was available. This is not an end-run around speedy deletion standards. If the article had remained on the user page, it would not be in the encyclopedia space, and unencyclopedic but inoffensive information on a user page is harmless. The article could only have been written by the subject or someone close to him, and userfying the page seemed like the most appropriate way of reducing the risk that the user would leave Wikipedia and never return.
  • In general, I wish that people would not delete articles for speedy-deletion quite so quickly so that the writer gets a chance to post a hangon message. In this case, it was clear that the article did not assert notability and any edits to it would probably not make the article pass the notability criteria.
  • In any event, the userification probably didn't do much good. The editor had no other contributions than this one article, and might not have returned anyway. Could I ask, though, that if you see an autobiographical article that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, that you consider moving it to the author's user page rather than speedy-deleting it outright? Similarly, consider whether a prod is more appropriate than a speedy, if there's any reasonable doubt about whether the speedy criteria apply. Despite good faith on the part of all concerned, Wikipedia's deletion process causes a lot of newbies to feel bit when their first article vanishes. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's also a longstanding policy that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Allowing vanity articles to remain in the userspace when the user in question has no other contributions makes it look like self-promotion is acceptable in the userspace when it's not. Instead of userfying you could also simply post a friendly message to the user who created the article. Result, we've got rid of the article and the user doesn't feel bitten as much. - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bootnr

It may have been a repost, but it was initially speedy deleted without any reasoning, and for such deletions, G4 doesn't apply. I'll leave CSD A7 tag in place. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Burning Questions wasn't a repost either. The initial article contained the letter 'a'. This article has now got context. I'll merge it into GameSpot. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jehu Eyre

Mr. Calton,

Hello, this is Joan53. I'm sorry that I haven't commented on this for so long, but I've had personal matters to attend to. I will be revising and then reposting the Jehu Eyre article to conform with the sources that History21 provided. I know that the artile was deleted but feel that this decision was unfair as the majority of those who commented wished to at least keep the Jehu Eyre article, even if they felt the rest were not noteworthy. The article as I will write it will, I assure you, be verified. I just wanted to inform you of my intention to do this. Thank you.

Joan53 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Joan53

Please Reconsider

Carlton,

I'd appreciate it if you would, please, reconsider your vote to delete the Grove Street Playhouse page. Significant additional verifiable references have been added to the page along with verifiable evidence of notability since you cast your vote. Although the article will need more work, I believe it now meet Wikipedia's Notability standards, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Another look would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

[edit] SMS.ac

You might want to help out with it. I just radically stubbed it, and it looks like you know a lot about the topic. The main thing I am interested in here is radical attention paid to being very very careful to cite sources.--Jimbo Wales 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Maltese Falcon and Sam Spade

This ongoing edit conflict is really becoming aggravating, I must tell you. I have a feeling, based on the edit histories of these two articles, that AllTalking and 24.6.23.248 are one and the same person---or, conversely, two people with exactly the same interests and holding to the same eccentric opinions. Either way, whether it's one person or two, the continuing edits and reversions on these (and related articles) are waring on me. They or he simply refuse to budge---it is their way or nothing. There has to be something we can do. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. ---Charles 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct, and that is what we will continue to do. I challenged on some unsourced assertions in the jazz article the other day, as well, and he did not even bother to respond. This did not shock me in the least. And I was not even saying he was wrong, simply that, considering the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, every assertion has to have a source. He just does not seem to be up to the challenge, as you have correctly stated. ---Charles 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations are appropiate for facts which are relatively unknown or obscure and not in relatively well-known information. Should there be a citation to indicate that the sky is blue or the fact that birds sing? Obviously giving citations for every sentence is absurd. All the facts in my edits are common knowledge to any one who has even an elementary knowledge of the subject. If you have valid information that contradicts anything I said, I would love to see it and will galdly accede to any changes necessary to conform the appropiate to said information. If you have OCD and expect every sentence to have a citation than follow your own advice in every single one of your edits.24.6.23.248 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility on AfD

With regards to your comments on [8]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Captainktainer * Talk 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a more personalized message, then I will gladly write one. You are accusing a fellow contributor of acting in bad faith without evidence. 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. You chose to lash out and insult and vilify a fellow contributor, unnecessarily. You escalated an otherwise fairly productive discussion into name-calling. This is not appropriate behavior, regardless of the merits of John Broughton's question. You violated three of the core policies - WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA - and that behavior is not acceptable. Captainktainer * Talk 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is why

In America it is part of the Genovese family, there is not disgunished between two they are one and the same.
Only in Sicily in pre Costello Era was it independent entity and even then it was limited as part of Corleonesi. “Fardella” is as well seldom used as D’Aquila was only leader for minor years.

Thus the historical element of the subsection of the family is lumped into either the Genovese or Corleonesi respectively for American and Sicilian. One may find reference to this in older reference such as court record pre Costello in Palermo and by oral tradition. To those who speak of it in Sicily what “Fardella” is subclass of certain family from specific region.

It may not been a individual entity for hundred years. As well in America in Genovese a “fardella” is use to

describe recent Sicilian immigrant integrated into family. I hope this clear it up. Thank you much.

 --Gangland | Talk 07:20, July 14, 2006 (edit) (UTC)

[edit] I just have

I speak of things i know. I take information I know from what I have been taught and write it down here to make record of it. You do not know this subject as. I have proven by knowing, you may disagree but that does not prove I do not know.

--Gangland | Talk 07:27, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest

I suggest you read the source at bottom. All people, place and facts are spoken of in them as well as other source. I will say no more on this subject as it is finished. I read by this page you seem to just like to cause conflict and personal attack with racial slur. You dispute it as your right do so, it is what it speak of and this is source. As you are not admin this issue is finish. I respectably ask you to no longer vandalize the page.

--Gangland | Talk 07:38, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

Hi: his article on the Fardella family is in any case a copyvio, and I have marked it as such.--Anthony.bradbury 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't know it was a mirror. Thanks for info.--Anthony.bradbury 13:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London development agency

Hi there: if you feel that user:Wser's articles on the LDA merit speedy, he's done plenty more for you to hit. As a relative newcomer I was a little uncertain as to their value.--Anthony.bradbury 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chocolate Rockets prod

I have nominated The Chocolate Rockets for deletion, as it does not meet the criteria for bands in Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have also noticed that User:WereWolf apparantly removed your nn-band tag. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ground rules

omg, lmao, excellent, well-stated, pertinent, worth mentioning here, I am considering citing them as a resource. The inclusion of this comment falls under rule number 4Ste4k 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a pair of articles that you might want to keep an eye on for, uhm, "cleanup", as you describe on your front page. I have withdrawn. This pair of articles is written as if a pipe that one is only allowed to read from one end looking through it, i.e. not the other. The data that is around in reputible secondary resources shows quite a different picture. Various editors, however, simply don't know anything about that sort of thing, ignore any mention, etc. None of those sources are allowed into the articles. You'll find them in my contribs. Miracles and Endeavor as a pair. I don't want to leave a reverse link on your page. Ste4k 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hillsboro

The link I posted is not irrelevant. It's completely relevant. Wjhonson 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And the point of being delibertely provacative? No attempt to work with me toward a resolution? I don't see it. Do you? Wjhonson 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it would be more productive to try to reach a consensus instead of engaging in edit-warring with no discussion Wjhonson 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually consensus has not been reached. In the original AfD the vote was split, including admins who voted on my side of the issue. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me. The review was conducted in a few hours, in the middle of the night. Hardly a fair procedure in a contentious situation. Wjhonson 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info

Removing personal info about editors, especially when apparently used to present derogatory information, isn't ridiculous. -Will Beback 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that the user had identified himself, which renders the issue moot. However the ban on revealing personal info is serious enough that removing a posting which contains such info is legitimate. If this had been a real case of it, it would even be appropriate to remove the entry from the page history. This topic appears to involve several people who are in RL disputes, reminiscent of the dogfight at Shiloh Shepherd Dog. -Will Beback 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#NPR

[edit] Disemvoweling

I see that you've been reverting the removal of inadequately-sourced material from Disemvoweling. I'd help if you stopped in at the talk page and explained why you think the material is worthwhile, and to help us find reliable sources. As it stands the article seems unverifiable. -Will Beback 08:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thrd Cvlty Wrnng

t sms t m tht y r ctng n n ncvl mnnr. Pls rmn cvl nd dn't rsrt t mkng prsnl ttcks r nstgt dt wrs. Pr yr dts [1] and [2] [9] and [10] - MSTCrow 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Bogosity disemvowelled, by Calton | Talk 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

Pls d nt rmv wrnngs frm yr tlk pg r rplc thm wth ffnsv cntnt. Rmvng r mlcsly ltrng wrnngs frm yr tlk pg wll nt rmv thm frm th pg hstry. f y cntn t rmv r vndlz wrnngs frm yr tlk pg, y wll ls yr prvlg f dtng yr tlk pg. Thnks. Pr bv. - MSTCrow 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Further bogosity disemvowelled, by Calton | Talk 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bhv

Cs nd dsst frm lvng nnsns f my tlk pg. - MSTCrow 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude. Stop or you'll get blocked. (that's to Calton) 1ne 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but people are allowed to remove posts from their own talk page. Exceptions are when someone's blocked and other admins need to be able to see the posts explaining the block, but otherwise it's fine. If someone removes a warning, you know they've read it, which is the point of leaving it, so all is well. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. If it were an ACTUAL warning I would leave it alone, but since it's anything BUT, I choose to treat it with all the contempt it's due. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm

Calton, sarcasm is an art that I'm very proficient in, it won't work as a hammer to beat me with, sorry. It's only *non* because it was *just* deleted, so that logic fails. You can't accuse someone of something that you made them guilty of, by your own actions. And I when I say *you* I mean the collective you of those who have been attacking this guy User:WikiWoo on his talk page.Wjhonson 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] agf

please remember to assume good faith calton, it is a wikipedia policy.

Justforasecond 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

my "track record" of dishonesty? come now. btw, you've just re-inserted information that is totally irrelevant to ron dellums without discussing it. that could be seen as uncivil. Justforasecond 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete POV tags without discussion

Do not make wholesale reverts. Especially not when it is about missing sources, sourced facts and POV tags when there is a controversial discussion you refuse to take part in. [11] Furthermore, the word "approved" is not in the source you provided nor is it implicitly in the text. Socafan 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the word "approved" is not in the source you provided nor is it implicitly in the text. Apparently you're not clear on the mean of the word implicitly Armstrong both stating that he has been using a skin cream, with authorization, to treat saddle sores...Defending him, the International Cycling Union said today that he had used the salve Cemalyt "to treat a skin allergy" and had presented a medical prescription to justify its use..."After discussion with French authorities," the organization said, "we declare with the greatest firmness that this was a use authorized by the rules and does not therefore constitute doping."
Poor guy. And that's just the first source I grabbed. By the way, that's three reverts so far to reintroduce your spin on the cream. Going for four? That would result in your fifth block since June. The more you get blocked, they longer they get, you know. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles need more reliable sources than what the person the article is about was stating. Had the cream been approved there would not have been a test result to justify. He was authorized to use it for his medical problem but the cream itself was not approved in general. Trying to insult others with words like "poor guy" says more about you and your argumentation skills than about anyone else. Removing POV-tags and requests for uncited quotes is vandalism and I will report this at the administrator's noticeboard. Socafan 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Continually posting long pseudo-legal arguments on talk pages and the Admin board that no one buys instead of working collaboratively and following consensus illustrates more succinctly about you and your argumentation skills -- or ineffectiveness thereof -- than anything I can list.
Free clue: when multiple people say you're wrong, there's a really decent chance you may, in fact, be wrong. Try pondering that idea for awhile. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for evading my point again. Removing POV-tags without consensus is vandalism, and trying to insult others says more about you than about anyone else. There are several editors agreeing with me that the article should not be a fanzine. If you are not alone it does not necessarily mean that you are right, try pondering that idea for a while. Socafan 01:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As I just found out, WP:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism deleting POV-tags more than once within 24hrs is explicitly listed as vandalism. They should not be restored more than 3 times either, so we both should not have done what we did. Whatever, I invite you to join the discussion page next time. I was there all the time. Socafan 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From your e-mail

Moved from User talk:MSTCrow [12], since the editor insists on altering the record to make himself look good. Doomed effort, but still...

Are you trying to be banned, or are you just naive?

Uh huh. Let's see:
  • Number of times you've been blocked since March (5 months): 5
  • Number of times I've been blocked since November 2004 (20 months): 0
So who's the one compiling the track record on the road to banishment? Don't insult my intelligence.
Oh, and speaking of naive, I'd like to point out that your big supporter above, Lingeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has been permanently blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of a previously permabanned user. Good choice of friends, there. --Calton | Talk 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1: She isn't a sockpuppet, and no one has proved that she is.
Checkuser says otherwise, if you didn't know. No, wait, [you do. Lying about what you've already been informed of, Lie #1
2: I've been blocked twice, not five times, and both times the blocks were vindictive and not based on fact, which you should know, as you're the one that lobbied for them due to others calling you on your bad behavior.
I lobbied for nothing and due to others calling you on your bad behavior isn't even coherent, but let's look at counting; again not your strong suit:
  • #1:　09:20, July 27, 2006 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Persistent personal attacks and abuse of warning templates after several explicit warnings.)
  • #2:　 02:14, July 24, 2006 El C (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
  • #3:　02:46, April 28, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (further personal attacks while blocked)
  • #4:　 01:17, April 27, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks)
  • #5:　 00:10, March 5, 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "MSTCrow (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)
Vocabulary lesson: "twice" =/= "5". Lie #2.
3: At some point, you will lose the protection of a corrupt admin, and punished for being such a nuisance to other users while contributing zero yourself.
See the comparative track record above. Also, calling an admin "corrupt" based on nothing but your own spite is hastening your own exit and no one else's.
4: Stop flamebaiting other users, the talk pages are not so you can pester them until they slap you with a warning, as which point you run home to whine to a sympathetic admin, who then attacks your victim.
SO many falsehoods in one sentence, not to mention the hypocrisy (sending me e-mail with Are you trying to be banned, or are you just naive? is intended as an olive branch, hmmm?). Let's just do the objective one: YOU began pestering me with your bogus warnings -- which an admin, completely unsolicited by me, removed. The phrase, "The pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind, not to mention "psychological projection". Lie #3, by the way.
5: You have a high opinion of your level of intelligence. - MSTCrow 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparatively speaking, yes. You watch Fox News, don't you?
It's pretty clear that you're on the Road to Eternal Banishment, like so many others, and like every single one of them, I -- and all the other good editors -- didn't have a damned thing to do with their fates -- nor will anyone else with yours. You see, lots of bad actors who have raged at me and anyone who crosses them have come and gone, and every one of them is gone because they self-destructed, with no help from anyone else. Blaming other people for their opinions of you is old hat -- as is ginning up reasons why it's everyone else's fault but your own. Been there, done that, have a closet full of t-shirts.
To recap: you've been blocked 5 times, you've been warned by multiple admins, you've lied -- objectively lied -- more than once, and you continue to insist it's everyone else's fault but yours: it's not me on the path to an indefinite block, it's you. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm responding direct to your (bogus) claims -- or is your nonsense about "deleting warnings is vandalism!" only apply to others? Editing inconvenient replies to make it look like your claims have gone unanswered is intellectually dishonest -- but I suspect you know that already. Don't like the answers? Don't ask the questions. --Calton | Talk 02:17, August 2, 2006

[edit] MSTCrow

I think that you have good cause for an arbitration request against MSTCrow, however it is also clear that the NPR request will not be accepted, largely due to the fact that that dispute is seen as content-related and premature. I know you had asked that the case be accepted to look into MSTCrow's conduct, and I hate causing more work for the sake of process, but in this case I do think it would be worth the time to file a new request specifically for MSTCrow, and give more rationale specifically for that case. That would be more articlate and will probably be accepted. Thanks. Note: Copied to Bishonen. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't deny that ArbCom is heavily loaded with cases (like always), but sometimes people see that and tend to forget that we can kill a problem long before a final decision with a well-aimed injunction. In any case, I'm not sure I have as much faith in the community's ability or willingness to ban except in the most extreme cases, but, as you say, we shall see. Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mild reminder

Please do try to remain civil, even -- and especially -- to those who have given you cause to be angry or who appear to have trouble understanding things. [13] Calling him a "ninny" and insinuating intellectually dishonesty in the long run ends up doing MSTCrow more good than you, or the rest of us. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite

Could you weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite? If you don't want to, I fully understand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, History21 has been proven to be a sockpuppet, so it's all moot anyway. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Try433 and vandalism

While your attempt to defuse the situation was awesome, I think that this diff might make you change your mind about that olive branch. This is someone who clearly knows what he's doing, to the point that (when I wrote this message) I could not even edit my talk page without it crashing. Captainktainer * Talk 07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation in regard to AN/I

There was some difficulties to get on the internet. Anyway I've posted thorough explanations on my talkpage. see 7 Response to AN/I 8 Full explanation of the conflict in late june 9 Alex's Explanation, Apology after reviewing 10 Main Issues. Thanks for your time. And I'll have more evidence and explanations up in the near future. Cheers--Bonafide.hustla 09:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil

  • Please stay civil :-) I know he is being very frustrating but ... Just focus on the content not the editing behaviour. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon - you have a problem and you need to cool off. Socafan isn't actually the only editor behaving badly. Your bad behaviour detracts form any editorial contributions you might wish to make. I am not encouraging a troll but truying ot encourage useful behaviour that focusses on content not editorial personalities. (Edit conflict - I support Socafan's warning)--A Y Arktos\talk 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

\

Calton, don't rise to the bait. Socafan's principal intent here is to portray those who oppose him as pursuing some kind of vendetta, and to continue his absurd pretence at being the wronged party. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked - repeated personal attacks and removing warnings - take a break for an hour--A Y Arktos\talk 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the double standard at work.
So, any sanctions for the repeated false name-calling -- and YOU have acknowledged them as false -- and removal of warnings by Socafan? Or does this latest example of his repeated bad behavior get a pass?

Like I said, enabling. --Calton | Talk 12:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I felt I tried to be reasonable and as you have pointed out to me, I failed miserably. I was disappointed to see the silly reversions at Lance Armstrong and the disussion which was uncivil, your edits were extremely uncivil, but no editor seemed to be focussing on the content. Mediation is obviously not my strong point! I wasted my time and would rather contribute. Your edits strongly breached the WP:NPA guidelines - not just those directed at the now permanently banned user but at me too; I have taken offence. Your removal of warnings on your page breaches guidelines - see Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism. Your suggestion that And you have a problem in sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. breaches WP:Own. Certainly the community has spoken with regards to User:Socafan and I support that - I found the editor frustrating to work with and would rather spend my time elsewhere. However, the community loses when it bans a user and it doesn't reflect well on any of us.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

As it seems you still have not understood it, removal of POV-tags more than once without consensus is Vandalism. You did it three times and did not even bother to join the discussion. Sorry that I removed your comment from my talk page too early, I believed I had replied already but there was an edit conflict. Socafan 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. From the page you pretend to cite. Like I said, reading-impaired, conveniently so. Again, do not keepbelieving other people are stupid. --Calton | Talk 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

It would be easier for you to go fix the missing redirects for all those Category:Presidents of Paraguay than to follow me around undoing my moves to the legitimate English spelling of these names. Yes, the redirect is still there when you undo my moves, but if you are interested in improving Wikipedia, get out there and do something about it. Gene Nygaard 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primetime?

Primetime has been very quiet recently. However a new user named List Expert seems to have taken his place defending the lists of slurs. Care to guess if it's the same person? -Will Beback 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Counter

Thanks for incrementing it, I'm getting popular. :) Ben W Bell talk 07:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leclercq

Lets apply a little WP:AGF here, I don't think he's Socafan, he seems much more reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring wine links

Hi, I'm not sure I agree with you restoring the links to localwineevents.com. It looks like they were mass-added by 66.56.31.46 (talk · contribs). Thus it appears to be an attempt to promote a commercial website using Wikipedia, which is a violation of WP:EL. Wmahan. 01:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and until today, when I saw you're comment onWP:ANI, I've never come across your edits. Trying to assume WP:AGF with JzG was a laughable waste of my time earlier today, but I'm looking for a neutral, outside opinion on the conflict at The Guardian. If possible, could you look at the sources I added (under my account) and decide whether you think they are reliable? You can find the specific links with a description of the writers, all of whom are quite qualified IMHO, on User talk:Daduzi. I'd also appreciate an immediate unblocking of my account, as I never violated WP:POINT in any way, much as Gamaliel and JzG would dislike that. 4.249.6.208 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I'm User:Tchadienne (aka User:Freestylefrappe; User:KI) 4.249.6.208 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orkney Antiquarian Society

You reverted Orkney Antiquarian Society three times within a few hours. This breaks the WP:3RR rule. Please remember WP:CIVIL as well. Please re-read the Orkney Antiquarian Society article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “vandalism”

Which definition of “vandalism” would you prefer? that in the OED? that in Merriam-Webster? or the peculiar definition that prevails in discussion of Wikipedia policy? Under each of these, the actions of 132.241.246.111 are vandalism. He is aware that he is damaging the coherence of the narrative and reducing the relevant content available to readers. If you will look at his discussion page, then you will see that he has repeatedly been blocked for such behavior, but simply finds a new set of articles to which to do the same sorts of things. —12.72.72.232 10:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Image:ResearchStar.gif We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics and page moves

Hi! Recently several editors, including yourself, have reverted edits by User:Gene Nygaard which moved pages to diacriticless titles, or expressed concern at the moves on his talk page. Despite this, Gene has carried on making many moves of this type, some of which will require admin work to revert - this behaviour is becoming disruptive, and is reducing consistency in article naming schemes. Further comments, suggestions and opinions would be welcome either at User talk:Gene Nygaard or at the section started by Renata3 at WP:AN/I. I believe this may require a report at RfM - please let me know if you think this would be a suitable action or otherwise. Aquilina 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard has carried on making page moves today, and declared his intent to carry on in the face of universal opposition on his talk page. I am thoroughly fed-up - have you got any suggestions for the next step? There has already been quite a lot of outside comment already (albeit one-sided, but I think that reflects opinion), so I'm not sure an RfC is the way forward - and given Gene's industy and the speed of RfC that could leave a big clean-up job. Any input you give will be much appreciated! Many thanks, Aquilina 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Zsinj 2

Hey, I wanted to drop you a note. An anon user voted support for Zsinj and signed with your name apparently, and that vote was struck. If that was you not logged in and you feel it should be counted, you can prolly go unstrike it. If that wasn't you then nevermind. ;) Syrthiss 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

You forgot to fix double redirects when you moved Mortlock Islands. I have taken care of the Tauu redirect for you. I may move the article back again, maybe you can provide some examples of actual usage to help me decide whether to do so or not, the article talk page would be appropriate if you have any additional info. After all, I don't seem to recall anybody putting you in charge, either. Gene Nygaard 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Takuu back to what it should be. Kahuroa 00:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Made Mortlock Islands into a disambig, as the little-used English name is ambiguous. Kahuroa 06:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Days of the week articles

Please do not delete births/deaths for people who have articles in Wikipedia - unless those articles are up for deletion. The project article has only one standard for birth/death inclusion - and that is they must have an article. Therefore deleting people with articles isn't appropriate. Rklawton 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purporting to act

Let me try to explain in neutral language why the Arb. committee merely purported to put an article ban. I have made it quite clear from the moment it was first proposed (it wasn't mooted, just proposed) that I regarded an article ban as unacceptable in principle. That means regardless of time, regardless of who supported it, etc. When the committee closed the case and the "ban" was imposed, I declared immediately that I recognised no such restriction and would continue to edit the article. In order for any such ban to take effect, it is dependent on me choosing not to edit the article. As I do not recognise the ban, I am in practice able to edit the article as and when I want, save if I get a general ban from all editing. Hence, no such ban actually applies.

I am at the moment voluntarily choosing not to edit the article, having been politely asked not to do so. Importantly, this was a request not to edit the article, not a request to obey a restriction imposed by the Arb. committee; I would not have followed the latter request. David | Talk 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, As it is obvious, my name is Edd. I would like to know why you deleted my updates for the September 15 Article. The news was ligitimate. I'm not here to compete with other editors, but I would like a reason for your complete deletion of my contrubution. Thank you, The Edd08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The edd08 (talk • contribs) 09:20, August 22, 2006

Ah, I see. Thank you very much for your positive critisism. I'll remember your advice in future edits. Thank you again, The Edd08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The edd08 (talk • contribs) 03:21, August 23, 2006


[edit] Charles Knight

Hi I saw your comment on my currently long-running soapopera over at the Adminstrator's notice board - was that to me or to Tonetare?

--Charlesknight 13:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - I thought that's what you meant but he's been telling people that "carlton agrees with me! so there" (or words to that effect) so I thought I better check! :)

--Charlesknight 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aman Verjee

I picked up a concern you expressed in your sandbox about Aman Verjee and a number of linked articles; you may like to know there's a VfD going on about these - your point of view might help. seglea 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmett Till

If he's considered a notable birth for July 25, then how come I don't see him listed as a notable death for August 28? The Legendary Ranger 11:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)