User talk:Chivista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Chivista, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Landis tag

I am not sure why you placed the sprotected tag, but I have removed it. The page isn't protected currently and nor does it look as though it needs to be.--Arktos talk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{sprotected}} tagging

Please do not add {{sprotected}} tags to pages. It doesn't do anything to protect the page, and the pages you're adding it to aren't proected. If you want to protect a page, you should figure out how to request protection and let an administrator handle it. RossPatterson 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thankyou very much. Over the last year the Spain and other pages have gradually come to have some semblance of coherent information - thanks to many. Now, however, it needs cleaning. I´ll do so as Provocateur. Don´t hesitate if you think anything I do is wrong - I´ve learnt much from my mistakes. Cheers.

[edit] Hiss

(I did get your message - the browser cutting off thing is annoying, but I just reformatted my talk page by moving your comment to the bottom so not to worry!). I am not sure what the story with regards to Hiss is. I was simply reading the article, which seems to suggest that there is a real controversy over what, if any, role he played in espionage for the Soviets. The lead then says categorically that he was a spy. That simply seemed a little unfair to me, so I added an "alledgedly" into the lead, to match it up with the rest of the article. Hope that helps. Batmanand | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut to the chase

Do you have a source for your proposed derivation? I can't find one, and it seems most improbable to me.--Londoneye 11:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Mexican Revolution

Just to let you know, adding {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article such as the notice you placed on Mexican Revolution. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Air America article

Please take a look at this sentence you added: it needs to be 2 sentences or it needs something to tie "commentators " to the first part. "But such predictions of the future are not encyclopedic, but for establishing a pattern commentators continuing doubts as to the commercial viability of a liberal talk model on broadcast radio. " ThanksEdison 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders

Hi, I noticed you were writing and article on Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders. Are you interested in joining Wikiproject:U.S. Supreme Court cases? --Eastlaw 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Chivista

It was actually a moving moment when Franken said that. A guy in the audience said, "Could we start using progressive more? Liberal...is so namby-pamby..." and Franken responded, "No. Liberalism has a proud tradition, and I want to be called liberal. The difference between liberal and conservative is that liberal cares about the communal, common good, and not just the individual. Most of America is liberal, they just have to be reminded of it. Look what happened when they tried to change Social Security and privatize it. We have to stop allowing the other side to define us, and when we reject the word Liberal we have allowed them to define us." It was great. To be honest, I have deep regard for both conservatives and liberals, in as much as I have deep regard for the yin and yang of the universe. that regard came from my own law class, "Jurisprudence and Political Theory" where we delved into the philosophy behind the law. The problem is that both sides tend to go overboard. Or, as Franken put it, the current people in power aren't conservative. Clinton left a record surplus when he left office. This administration cuts taxes in the midst of two wars - what's conservative about that? Thanks for all the great work you do on here. --DavidShankBone 15:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. Barrett & Thanks

Thanks for removing the non-notability note on Wayne Barrett. Good call. (I made a few additions to his bibliography.)Dogru144 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Image: A guide to Pseudo-events in America

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article The Image: A guide to Pseudo-events in America, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:The Image: A guide to Pseudo-events in America. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Brianyoumans 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

looks like there is duplication then.

[edit] Spelling issues

Just wanted to let you know on the Taco Bell comment on the 2006 North American E. coli outbreak on misspelling "separate," I realize my spelling is not perfect. The word separate is one of the words I most commonly misspell. All I want to do is contribute. That's all. Chris 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Joe Torre

A tag has been placed on Fire Joe Torre, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

There are tons of websites like this, which have a very limted viewership. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web). - Fan-1967 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Fan-1967 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Life

Second Life is a Featured article candidate! frummer 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal Massacre

I honestly don't really understand the dispute. I have tried to lay out what I think Sue's issue is on the talk page. It's quite strange, since her own website about the events is called montrealmassacre.something. I suspect that internationally, the events are more known as the "montreal massacre" since to someone outside canada, the school-name could indicate france, africa, etc. It's actually irrelevant what I think, because the tons of articles that appeared on the recent anniversary used Montreal Massacre as often as the other name. Cheers. Dina 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits to McGill

Thank you for experimenting with the page McGill University on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powell v. McCormack

Could you please expand Powell v. McCormack? Right now, the page does not present any details of the case, or even its outcome, and as the page creator, I was hoping you might have some more information you could add. Thanks, — Swpb talk contribs 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season

I've proposed to have a Football League WikiProject for each individual season. If you're interested, you can show your interesthere Kingjeff 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pied People

Chivista, Some unimaginative robot deleted Pied category for both Dion and Gates. I don't have the time or expertise to deal with this. Can you handle? Bellagio99 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to Adela Micha

My apologies if the nomination for deletion has caused you any ire. I am not singling out individuals - as I have explained to the previous people who have posted on my page, I am in the process of going through all of the unassessed biographies that have yet to recieve a rating. I take the articles at face value, and if they lack the notable information listed in WP:BIO (as far as I can see, which is subjective to a degree, I know), I nominate them for deletion. It is not my wish, really, to have these articles deleted if they are of a person of note, but at least it brings some attention to them in hopes that they will be edited and their notability reflected in the article. Again, my apologies if this has upset you. --Ozgod 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you missed the point of what I was saying - I am going down an alphabetical list of unassessed articles - I am not selectively picking and choosing from any criteria than an article at face value. If you feel Béatrice Schönberg should be nominated for WP:AFD than I would suggest you do so. At the moment I am going through the list of unassessed articles [here] and came to Adela Micha through that list. --Ozgod 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I really wish you would not take this personally. I am literally going down the list alphabetically and nominated the article for deletion. You are welcome to go to that articles page for deletion and state your opinion there. My nominating the article for deletion had nothing to do with personal interest or vendetta against Adela Micha, other than taking the article at face value and seeing that it failed to meet the standards for WP:BIO. --Ozgod 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My best suggestion for you right now is to expand her article as much as you can, reference it, get an infobox up and a photo perhaps, this way the article avoids deletion and can move from stub to start, possibly even a B class. --Ozgod 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did not cause you any undue stress with the Adela Micha AfD, and it fortunately has been kept. I have tagged it with {{expand}} and {{unreferenced}}. I am not as familiar with the subject as you are, but if you could track down an image of her and possibly create an infobox with her vital stats (Date of birth, place of birth, etc.), that will help get the ball rolling on the article. Again, my apologies if the AfD nomination caused you any ire. --Ozgod 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sciences

Hello. Placing personal commentary in articles such as Actuarial science and Political science is not allowed here in wiki, as it is counter to our principles of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Also, neither of those belongs on the Pure science page. Thanks. -- Avi 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

These edits are indicative of placing personal opinions into articles, which is forbidden under WP:NPOV. They also may be construed as personal attacks, another wikipedia policy violation. Please review both WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. -- Avi 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that you may not enter editorial commentary in articles. Please read the policies I inked above, and you may wish to refresh WP:3RR as well. -- Avi 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Actuary. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you or I personally disagree on whether it is a science is completely irrelevant. Edits must follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Adding an unsubstantiated, controversial, opinion violates those policies. As a jurisprudential practicioner, you should appreciate that ;) -- Avi 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I censored your self-referential edit [1]. Please do not do this again. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Ask Dr. Science. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Likewise, please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Pure science, Actuarial science, or Political science. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that "actuarial science and political science are not sciences." I wrote that your edits to those articles are unhelpful and non-constructive and, if they continue, will be considered vandalism.
You asked how to "remove those science lables." The answer is that you don't. It is not the responsibility of any editor to make decisions such as what it or isn't science. That is considered "original research" and Wikipedia editors are not supposed to use Wikipedia to "state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)."
Instead, editors' contributions are supposed to be based on reliable published sources. If you can find a reliable source with credibility that states that actuarial science or political science are not sciences, it would be appropriate to include that viewpoint in those articles. Otherwise, you are simply expressing your own opinion, which has no place in a Wikipedia article.
I hope that I have explained myself clearly. If you have any questions, please let me know. Or, review "the five pillars of Wikipedia" that are recommended at the top of this page for an overview of what Wikipedia is and its character. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previewing

Hello Chivista, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks, mattbr 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are being reported for violating the 3RR in Illegal immigration in the United States -198.97.67.56 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on the article Illegal immigration to the United States. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel Talk 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)