User talk:Cumulus Clouds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Removal of Trivia tag from Paris Hilton article

Re Paris Trivia removal: I have carefully studied the WP:BLP and do not feel the information you removed was in violation. SomeSlasher has returned some of it, now placed within a proper section of "Paris in popular culture", subsection "Effects in the arts", sub-sub section "Popular parodies", presented in an organized manner, and with verifiable citations. I believe these factual informations should stay, as they are now per WP:BLP a Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiable, and contain No original research . Thanks, AnotherSearcher (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with SomeSlasher and user:AnotherSearcher, and politely disagree with you about your removing some interesting and cogent facts from the article. To quote directly from Wikipedia:Trivia sections: "What this guideline is not: There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." So... you removed information that should have been left in... information that although poorly presented, was better being presented than not at all. More interesting, you tagged as "Trivia" informations that had already been properly handled as per Wikipedia:Handling trivia and which had been moved to a section titled "In popular culture". I agree with CelebPress that the tag you placed on the article should be removed. And I agree with the others that the information you removed should be returned. That one or another of us thinks information to be trivial, does not make it so. And to repeat "...This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all...(Wikipedia:Trivia sections)" L.L.King (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Paris article, I find that much of the information is not noteworthy. However, would it be better tif I take the informations presented under the "In popular culture" heading and combine it into a more succinct and readable form... a few paragraphs that can be better included in another section? I am willing to do the work if you feel it would be helpful. If yes, which section might best be used? L.L.King (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this....? Adding it to "Personal life" as "Contoversy" just after "Driving convictions"? Here's my idea.....

-removed-

I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W00t

Please stop blanking the page. At this point, you are fighting the current consensus as to whether the page should be retained and improved upon. Create a new AfD if you still have problems with this article, but at this point it is not proper to unilaterally take matters into your own hands. Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

ROFLMAO! Sometimes I guess I'm too gullible, though I claim defence of not knowing anything about the nuttiness of the situation until you wrote your blurb.  ;) Kelvinc (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I removed some of your tags from said article. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest you stop trying to threaten everyone to get your way. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

I have nominated this page at AFD. Since you prodded the article, you may want to put in your opinion here. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A response to your comments are on my talk page — BQZip01 — talk 21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apologies....

I am sorry for any actions of mine that caused you grief. Anything I said about you or your editing habits was only a voicing of opinion. And no matter how reaches an opinion, opinion has no place on Wiki. My behavior was intemperate and wrong. I apologize. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your earnest response. At your convenience, please drop back by my talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical violation of WP:3RR

This is your user talk page and you have the right to edit as you see fit (as we all do), but you do not own it. It still falls under WP:talk. I strongly suggest simply moving comments with which you disagree to an archive if someone insists on posting. This will take it directly off the focus of your talk page, but still allow it to remain within Wikipedia (I've done the same thing) bypassing WP:3rr, but staying within the rules. If needed for later reference, it is still there. I also suggest simply not posting on Mr. Schmidt's talk page. It doesn't do any good for anyone right now. — BQZip01 — talk 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing in WP:USER indicates that removing material from your own talk page is disallowed, no matter how many times another user may attempt to insert it. The reference to WP:OWN isn't really applicable here since this is a) a talk page and b) a user page, both of which together mean that users are given more leeway in adding or removing content, since it is their user page. Lastly, this is not a 3RR violation and I object to you suggesting that. I do not intend to engage that user any further, and I would appreciate the same from them. My post on their talk page was only meant to indicate that and nothing else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User created watermarking in images

The policy is here Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images (last paragraph of the section). You have not misunderstood the policy. Watermarking reduces the free use of an image, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cumulus Cloud: get a life, you loser

Cumulus Clouds, you have made Wikipedia a blog, not a fact based website. While you may think I am not a notable actor, the film and television industry, and my bank account disagrees with you. You need to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.227.22 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the report at AIV since the ip made their edits some time ago... However, when coming here to tell you that I noticed the above and have blocked them for a little while for making a personal attack. I don't suppose they will notice, as the ip will likely be re-assigned as soon as they logged off, but they may see this if they come back here. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP followup

Just to let you know that I've linked the similar MO's together under User talk:SamanthaFox as probable socks/ip socks. If this continues, just add the {{IPsock}} to the IP acccounts. SkierRMH (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Unsourced Trivia" in Something Awful

The content in question (Photoshop Phriday, etc.) is verifiable by a visit to the actual forum itself. The forum is the original source for the activities described, one of which ("blue ball manipulator") is a redirect to the Something Awful page. 76.102.100.52 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification

Please see talk:BQ and respond accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report all you wish

That is user space which I am using as a sandbox. It is not linked anywhere and I posted nothing about it anywhere. It is a draft and is incomplete. It is specifically permitted under WP:USER. Nothing more. — BQZip01 — talk 22:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tools

The point was in demonstrating the fallacy of 'anything goes with a disclaimer'. I can see where it can be seen as an escalation in incivility. I will stand down.70.4.248.49 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Cloud — BQZip01 — talk 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi CC, thanks for your message. I do not have any idea when BQ would reply. I am surprised that he has made other edits but has not posted back to the RFC. Your offer does you great credit and I hope BQ responds soon so we can close this chapter of our wiki-lives. I did send BQ an e-mail just now asking him to please post as soon as he can. Best, Johntex\talk 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Offer

Here's the same offer I've made to BQZip. Let's get together and have a WP:BEER without drama, and try to talk it out instead of duke it out. Give it some thought. Franamax (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ has indicated this might be a way to go. You are free to just wait it out and see if the RFC gets certified, fight it if it does, and keep on going if it doesn't. It might all work out better if we don't end up with winners and losers. My formal offer is here. Franamax (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cameltoe

Nonsense. The subject of the article is well known precisely because it has attracted so much pop culture attention. It's a central plot element in the movie The Weather Man and became well known at least in part because FannyPack released a single called "Cameltoe". The article would be negligent if it did not mention these things. Not every "in popular culture" section is comprised of useless trivia, and I have tried to keep that section well-manicured. I'll be restoring it in a second; if the list format irks you you can convert it to prose. Chubbles (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has sources; you should read them. [1] Chubbles (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But why is the New York Times writing about the phenomenon? Because of the song...in any case, it makes no sense to blot out all mention of FannyPack from the article; it's entirely germane and relevant. Chubbles (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Synopses of the movie routinely mention this plot element. E.g., [2]. I don't care what you call the section; I think the bias against "in popular culture" sections is high evidence of Matthew Arnold creeping back into our definitions of "what is encyclopedic", but I don't wish to debate philosophy here. What should the section be called? Chubbles (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I must be seeing this wrong. You dispute the first two sentences of the section; fine, we'll have to wait for the slang dictionaries to pick them up. The FannyPack reference is being moved - okay, where is it being moved? The Weather Man mention is significant enough to be picked up in half a dozen synopses in Google News alone; this is something worth mentioning, even if it's not a part of the "meme" argument. Now, where are these two things being moved again? They don't really seem to fit in the current sections - any suggestions on reorganization? Chubbles (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The original synthesis argument only operates under the premise that the word's popularity is a direct result of the film or the song; of course, I think it's silly to remove it since it's true, but you've the right to challenge it. However, merely noting the existence of the hit song "Cameltoe" or the prominent place it has in the film is not original research; it's a direct statement. Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence deals with the notability of the term itself. The mentions of the song and the film are not being used to support the notability of the term itself; that's ably supported by the other references in the article. Chubbles (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, I wish I knew how to quit this article. I used to do vandal-patrol on it; I removed it from my watchlist a while back because I got sick of it, and when I went back to "check up on it" a few months later, I was (not very) surprised to find that it had been nominated (unsuccessfully, thankfully) for deletion, and about half the article had been excised. It's bizarre but telling that the article gets so much attention. Chubbles (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whale Tail

Hi. I've reverted your change to a redirect page. The article survived one deletion debate already, but feel free to nominate it again if you feel the need. Don't just redirect it without proper discussion, though. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merges of articles without discussion or consensus

It might be possible to make a case that some of the articles you turned into redirects might be appropriate targets for merges. However, the fact that most of these articles have already been the target of unsuccessful efforts at deletion, many of which you have been involved in, and the fact that the consensus was for retention, demonstrates that a genuine effort to confirm that consensus exists for merging these articles must be undertaken before taking action. The fact that you have undone multiple articles into redirects and done so without any form of discussion, let alone consensus, is a major cause for concern. I strongly suggest that you make appropriate efforts at making a case and establishing consensus for your proposals before taking any such action in the future. I believe I have undone whatever of your changes that User:JediLofty missed. Alansohn (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is already a request for comment open, I implore you, Cumulus Clouds, to attempt to resolve the issues you have with these articles using the AFD process. Oh, and thanks, Alansohn, for catching the articles I missed! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if you feel I've been disruptive to the encyclopedia, you are more than welcome to comment there. I think it will be closing shortly, so time may be limited. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC deleted

I tagged for speedy, it's gone. It was a week old and uncertified. Lawrence § t/e 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it gets recreated or sent to DRV, or on ANI, please notify me as speedy tagger. I don't watch ANI, AN, or DRV on my watchlist routinely and only check them if I'm already involved in something. Lawrence § t/e 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking a Wikibreak now that the RFAR mentioned just now my talk is over. Email me if the situation arises once more, please, via my account. Lawrence § t/e 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD tag removed

I've removed your CSD tag on User:BQZip01/Comments, as it was previously a subject of an MfD here and though circumstances may have changed, it cannot be speedied and must go through the full deletion process. Any further questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BQ. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

[edit] Warning about rollback

As you should be aware, the rollback privilege is for use only when reverting clear vandalism. Its use states "that edit was so worthless that it does not deserve an edit summary". Specifically, this revert should have been made the traditional way with a proper edit summary. The rollback privilege may be removed in case of further misuse. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love handles and Muffin top

I have opened a Request for Comment on Muffin top and Love handles which you may be interested in viewing. I'm curious as to why you have reverted when I'd expressed my objections and raised the issue so that consensus could be reached on the talk pages. Labelling my edits as vandalism was rather unnecessary, I feel. Incidentally, I wonder if nominating three of the articles I'd created for deletion (as well as a swiftly-declined speedy on a fourth) could be considered WP:POINTy?-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Hi there. I just wanted to thank you for reminding me to update my online CV. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muffin top and Love handles

The article was protected because it was word-for-word identical to Central obesity and continually had the redirects undone without explanation. To prevent the duplication of this material, I requested and was granted protection on that page. Now JediLofty seeks to undo that change as he has on many of my previous edits so that he can argue it out in an AfD when this absolutely isn't necessary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So noted. You can feel free to use regular editorial processes like {{merge}}, {{split}}, and so on to discuss and come to a consensus on the edits you wish to make. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - RFCU on you

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds. Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I probation proposal

See WP:AN/I for the thread I've started proposing that you and BQZip01 be barred from further interaction. Avruch T 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to understand your values

Combating the evil menace of articles related to terms you don't like, merging articles without any evidence of consensus or support, coming up with arbitrary demands for merging articles and nominating these articles for AfDs and doing so in the face of the clearest possible opposition to your actions is apparently a rational use of your time. But dealing with an abusive sockpuppet who has made about 400 edits, most malicious and abusive, to and about a single article is "no big deal"? Next time you see an article for a supposed neologism that bugs you, why not say to yourself "Relax dude, this isn't that big of a deal" and move on to something productive. Maybe create a new article or improve an existing one. Though I must say that if I had gone after these sockpuppets with the same vigor that you've invested into getting rid of Whale tail, they'd have been long gone. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you've lost perspective about what's important here. And I think you'll find that attacking those that disagree with you does you far more harm than good. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So let's hear the proper perspective: Why is fighting against perceived neologisms more important than trying to deal with a set of sockpuppets who have devoted 400 edits to malicious and defamatory updates related to a single article? Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gen-X

I've left a comment and a message starting 2 weeks ago asking for mediation with this article. If you haven't seen it, I'm asking that you give it some consideration. If you have, and are ignoring it, I'll be reversing your edits. Why not get out of the problem and into the solution? Ledboots (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cleaning that up

...on the sockpuppet page. I would also like to apologize for my part in our testy exchange on the checkuser. It didn't help either of us. With your permission, I'd like to delete your name from the list and remove both of our comments. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 05:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who'd have thought...

... we'd have both have the same opinion for once! LOL! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

Reading the line - "And yes, we can and do insist on having sources for every single statement" - I have a question - do you ever create articles? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New message

You have a follow-up response on the Gen-X page. Ledboots (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Apparel and Dov Charney

Hi. A while back you and I were both watching over these two articles, which had various POV and COI problems (as you may recall, a PR person from the establishment was trying to remove derogatory material). At the time I thought we restored some balance, and gave the company fair warning that this kind of activity could blow up as a PR disaster. In the past few days a series of IP and account-holding editors has been making a series of changes, all designed to downplay controversy and make the company look better. Most of the edits have had various policy / guideline problems with reliable sources, verifiability, commentary, synthesis, BLP, POV, and so on. One could attribute that to the normal evolution of an article with less experienced editors, except that this looks more and more like a sockpuppet / meatpuppet attack. These editors showed up all of a sudden after a several week lull in the article, they are all brand new accounts with no other edits for the most part than these two articles, they are universally either trying to improve the company's image or making minor technical corrections, and the IP editors all come from the LA area where the headquarters is based. If this is the company trying to change its image again they've grown a lot more sophisticated since last time and I'm afraid we're only training them to be more subtle - it's only time before they use wikipedia processes to try to go against me for my efforts to hold the line. If I'm just being paranoid, it would be useful to have a third opinion on this... I have no real stake in this and I don't care deeply about a slant one way or another in an article, just avoiding subversion of the encyclopedia. Thanks if you can, Wikidemo (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Single Label Marked for Deletion

You wrote, regarding Milan-45-single-cover.jpg: Obsoleted by Image:IAmWhatIAm-Milan.jpg and thereby fails NFCC #3a and #8.

Usually if someone wants to delete an image – such as the image of the original LP cover of Song to a Seagull that cut off part of the title (which I found quite interesting but the Joni Mitchell community apparently does not) – I just cave and let them do it. I am about to go in and do some more changes to the album article. I am a little new to all this and mostly just muck about with my obscure articles on obscure recording artists, so I have no idea what "NFCC" means, never mind #3a or #8. I didn't think the idea was to use as few images as possible, but maybe it is. But anyway: My question is, how does an image of the cover of an album "obsolete" an image of the label of a single taken from that album? I don't follow. Shocking Blue (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation X

Please don't mark reverts as "rvv" or vandalism unless that is actually the case. Specifically, this revert was not vandalism. Making unfair accusations of vandalism is uncivil. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Come now, since when can't an encyclopedia reference itself? If you have an issue with the citation, take it up on the United States of America page. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If one citation can take care of an entire paragraph, there is no need to utilise it multiple times within the paragraph. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rwandan Genocide Bibliography (and Filmography)

I think the consensus is not to delete this article. The descision to keep it separate or merge it is sort of in the balance. If, though, I confirm my vote to merge(the bibliography as well as the filmography), do you think we can bring this dispute to an end? I do really agree it is unesessary to keep it separate. Just as long as it does not suffer total neglection.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation X

Please point me to the portion of the wikipedia definition of vandalism which supports your claim that I committed vandalism on the Gen X talk page. Sbs9 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha Tower

Per WP:BRD, you were bold in removing the image gallery, and I reverted your deletion. At that point, you are suppoed to use the talk page to explain your edits; BRD is intended to prevent WP:EDITWARS. I'm not sure why you feel the need to impose your POV on the article, but from now on, please use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation! You've convinced me. And I actually agree with you in regards to BRD. It is generally abused, however, I was quoting it to avoid an edit war, which is what it does best. Thanks, again for AGF. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, but I place the matter in your hands. Your judgment is sound, and I await the outcome of your decision. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Wahoo

Thank you for fixing. I had a hunch it was something along those lines, but for some reason it was unclear to me. The way they run these bots is really insidious. The bots are literally idiots. That's not their fault though... it's the ones who set the bots up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You really enjoy trawling my image gallery and tracking my life; kudos. Just remember, I don't care, as does anybody, about what you're trying to do. The facts remain the same, and the evidences speak for themselves. =) Chensiyuan (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how's this, let's stop bothering each other. How's that sound to you. I don't think we're necessarily at cross-purposes. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I needed that, Gratefully excepted.

[(diff) (hist) . . Tibet‎; 02:52 . . (-427) . . Cumulus Clouds (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 211789079 by Ubuibiok (talk)

- read WP:CITE to learn how to write in line citations,

do not sign your edits)] Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK
(talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "My vandalism"

Hi. First of all removing the entire section or adding duplicate photos was entirely accidental I didn't notice that and thanks for adding it. As the founder of WikiProject Tibet I seriously doubt I would ever try to vandalise an article, quite the opposite in fact if you examine what I have actually done for the project and wikipedia. However that human rights section is potentially highly problematic and severely affects the balance and tone of the article. It gives the impression that it is "pro Tibetan" by emphasing the unpleasantries of the Chinese and is likely to be subject to edit wars and trouble with the article in the future. I'm not saying we should ignore human rights issues but writing it neutrally is very difficult to do in the circumstances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASSUME GOOD FAITH & DON'T BE A DICK

Do not plagarize [sic] materials from other websites. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia protocol and you will be blocked if you continue to do so. This is your only warning. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a DICK WP:DICK and Assume Good Faith WP:AGF. If your goal is to inform me about purported plagiarism then you will be more successful by supplying the source material in question rather than with a threat. This is your only warning. 24.98.135.148 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, comments like the above pretty much nullify any good faith one might assume. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Generation X.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

|

[edit] Arbitration

Gen X is going to arbitration, and you my friend, are invited to attend. Ledboots (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serfdom in Tibet

Yep , the article has problems. But speedy delete is only for the reasons in WP:CSD. (yu are right though that there was no point in prod if its going to be deleted). The only way to go for deletion on this is afd. I am uncertain about the result, & even uncertain about what I will say there myself. DGG (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Thank you for alerting me about this, I'll see what I can do. Strangely enough, User:LaGrandefr has not edited in quite a while and even announced on the Tibet during the Ming Dynasty talk page that he would be leaving English Wikipedia indefinitely. This would be a lie if he's just trolling around under another account, but we'll see.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference, I believe LaGrandefr's IP address is 195.221.219.142. I say this because during our debate at Talk:Ming Dynasty, it was this IP address that was pushing to have LaGrandefr's dubious map placed in the Ming Dynasty article in several other Wikipedias, such as German Wikipedia here on March 27. Hope this helps.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha! Dude, I just read Foxhunt's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Foxhunt99, and I am almost certain that it is the same person as LaGrandefr. They have seemingly identical syntax errors in their sentences and similar use of adjectives.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, User:Chenyangw's bizarre one-sentence statement as his user page is strikingly similar to the first version of LaGrandefr's user page and his present talk page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're up for it, I would suggest that you make another request for checkuser and provide the IP address (i.e. 195.221.219.142) to moderators so that they can quickly verify whether or not LaGrandefr and Chenyangw come from the same source.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of LaGrandefr too, and wondered if the same person was cooking this new brew up. But I figured, if LGF wanted to sockpuppet, he would probably use his sockpuppets to attack Tibet during the Ming Dynasty again. What's more, I doubt LGF would be silly enough to think of me as a likely ally in support of keeping the Slavery/Serfdom article. Bertport (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESanchez013

I don't really understand what's wrong. I placed the {{userpage}} template. What do you want me to change? I would've appreciated mention of your intention on my talk page. Thanks! Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags on HM Bark Endeavour

Thank you for the message you left [3] on my talk page.

The reason I have previously removed the multipleissues box is given in the edit summary:

"removed unhelpful multipleissues box as there was nothing in the talk page to support it"

It's good Etiquette use the edit summary to explain your changes to other editors rather than to use it to demand that no-one else touches them.

If you really think that such a garland of tags is helpful to this article then why not explain your reasoning to the rest of us on the article's talk page? As it stands I can see no benefit in having it there so I'll probably delete it again the next time I contribute to the article.

Better still, why not have a go at improving the article yourself?

The article is rated as B-Class on the assesessment scales of WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Shipwrecks and WikiProject Ships so there is clearly an overwhelming consensus that it needs further work.

So go ahead, think about what you can do to make the article better, and Be bold and help make HM Bark Endeavour the great article it deserves to be.

Petecarney (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)