User talk:Deconstructhis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Deconstructhis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to talk about your irrepressible editing of the page on The Dragon Academy . If it is I would like you to please stop your frequent reversion of the article. Your version is not in line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. It is an add. Silencing the students right to complain about the school also goes against the school's beliefs. Rudkis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudkis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I'm in agreement with your point that even my abbreviated edit of the article still reads a lot like an ad, but that doesn't address what I'm taking about below pertaining to your version.I have few objections with the idea of someone affixing the appropriate 'need for a rewrite' template to this article in it's original form.

Deconstructhis 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Comments On My Editing of the Article " The Dragon Academy"

I'm not certain either, regarding what the proper protocol is for dealing with issues like these, but I'd like to suggest that it might be more appropriate if it was taking place on the discussion page of the article in question. By doing that, I believe that it's much more likely to perhaps draw the attention of the school itself so that some other voices might be heard on the matter. I'll try to be as concise as possible regarding the reason behind my "reversions" of the article. Let's look at the part of the text that I find to be most undesireable in terms of it being 'unencyclopedic' in nature and the section you seem most concerned about:

[...]

"Students in the upper forms of the school, however, find this to be an unnecessary impediment to their overall academic success. One such disgruntled student, has hopes for attending university in the United Kingdom, but is worried that because of his lower grades in the seemingly vestigial art and music classes, he may not be able to achieve the required overall average. Another student feels that he would be more successful if his efforts were they more heavily focused on the academic classes in which he struggles and will be required for university application."

First of all, none of this is substantiated in any way, there is no referencing involved at all. If my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, that means, at least in theory, that any editor may remove it at any time based on that alone. Actually, my main concern with this part of the article isn't the fact that it's not sourced, it's that it appears to consist mostly of an airing of the personal grievances of two (former?) students of the place and not much else. Again, my interpretation of the encyclopedia's policy is that Wikipedia should not be used as a "soapbox". The posting of an entire paragraph of the unsubstantiated personal grievances on Wikipedia of two people, appears to me to be exactly that, an encyclopedia article is being utilized to publically complain about something they don't like on a personal level. In my opinion, none of it belongs in a Wikipedia article for the reasons I've stated. Rather than simply wonder about this, I' going to post a 'helpme' request regarding the matter on my own talk page and we'll see if we can get a third opinion on the issue. Deconstructhis 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hello, you've requested for help. What's your problem? Martial BACQUET 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the contested paragraph for reasons I laid out here. I hope this is going to help resolve the issue. — aldebaer⁠ 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you "AldeBaer" for your speedy response in this situation, it's greatly appreciated. Unless "Rudkis" is prepared to substantiate these claims in a reliable way that conforms to Wiki standards, I'm of the opinion that they're battling for a lost cause. Deconstructhis 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter banner pix

Hi,

I am listing 3 of the 4 pictures at Helicopter banner for deletion. You might wish to chime in on the IFD discussion. I would list the fourth because it has the same problem as the Adidas picture, but lack obvious evidence that it's a copyvio. Thanks - Tempshill 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Martin

Please forgive my terse complaint in reverting your reversion to the Walter Martin article. It was later that I found, with embarrassment, that in editing ==Controversies== I had accidentally saved only that section. I'm glad you discovered and fixed the problem. Sincerest apologies. Afaprof01 02:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• errare humanum est. cheers Deconstructhis 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

gratia mihi amicus Afaprof01 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from 83.40.189.186

Hi, I would like to send you a message could you provide me your email? Regards, Juan. 83.40.189.186 (talk · contribs) - (message moved from user page by Onorem♠Dil 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

• Please simply post your message here. Thanks.Deconstructhis 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About the cuckoo clock article in where I removed one manufacturer because I read is not a good one, this way customers won´t be dissappointed; http://www.cuckooclockologist.com/inouropinion.htm Regards, Juan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.159.61 (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Juan, although you probably have good intentions when you removed the link, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with what you're saying and I once again replaced it in the article. As Wikipedia editors, our job isn't to decide whether or not a product is "good" or not, based on a review that we happen to see online. The links section at the end of that article is simply entitled "Cuckoo clock manufacturers", it dosen't necessarily mean that *any* of them are any good, that isn't for us as editors to decide, as long as the company meets the criteria of being a "Cuckoo clock manufacturers", which it does, it belongs on the list. Besides, for all you know, perhaps the review is simply *wrong*. RegardsDeconstructhis 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, okey let us people decide. Regards, Juan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.159.61 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Lyon Mackenzie King. 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. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring

I see on your user page that you are feeling the steep part of the curve. If you ever need some help navigating or need a reality check, please call on me. I don't sugar coat it but I hope that I can help. --Kevin Murray 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind offer, it's good to see people taking the intiative to extend those here on Wiki.Deconstructhis 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

You're very welcome! :) Dreamy ^§ 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Appreciate the thumbs up! I was worried I might be stepping on some toes... Blotto adrift 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again...looks like I stepped on some toes after all. I understand that some of these things are contentious, but putting the townships in alpha order gets reverted? That was just baffling. Blotto adrift 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (aka Dips**t from Toronto)

• In my opinion, it's exactly that approach that's undermining their position in the first place. NPOV. Wikipedia isn't personal, or personal opinion, it's only what we as editors can spout and *more* importantly, back up what we're spouting, with actual citations from reliable sources. I'd like to thank you once again for at least making the attempt at improving the encyclopedia. Deconstructhis 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• And I GAVE you people sources, and that still wasn't good enough. How can some moron who lives nowhere near Chatham-Kent be allowed to edit entries about a city they know NOTHING about? Stop this nonsense. It's getting old.

An admin deleted some of her/his comments from the talk page here- if you check the history, it gives you a sense of what we're dealing with. I don't think rational appeals are going to have any effect. There's now a 10-day block on that IP. Blotto adrift (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Cat and Mouse"? Seems more like 'Whack-A-Mole' to me. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You dealt with some recent changes to C-K just as I was looking at it, thanks for that. One question though - the reference to Mexican & Mexican-Mennonite workers refers to Leamington in Essex. I wonder if there's a more local reference available - it's likely an issue in Elgin and Lambton as well. Or, some mention that there are lots of Mexican workers and there have been labour issues in nearby communities or something like that. Blotto adrift 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Because of the huge agricultural base, without question, the entire region has similar problems. Personally, I have no issues with including these in an article, provided that they're supported by proper referencing and obviously biased rhetorical stances are left out. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox enabling individual editors to grind their own personal political axes. Deconstructhis 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: E85 gas in Chatham-Kent

I know I added that without referencing it, but it is verifiable factual information, rather than opinion, speculation or interpretation, and I just didn't have the time earlier to track down a good online citation. Sometimes I add citations to other material, so for once I left it open for someone else to contribute if I didn't get back to it first. 24.57.184.8 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miigwech on Teiaiagon

Thanks. The only reason I first visited the Teiaiagon article was because through WP:IPNA/Nish I got notified of edits to the Mississaugas, which after checking up on an editor of extremely biased edits, the trail took me to Teiaiagon article. I tried to do a clean-up but that effort was quickly squelched. Again, thanks for keeping on top of things there. I have gone and reversed the latest edits, but have kept the tag at the head, and added in extra categories. Hopefully, this will trigger additional eyes to look over and better develop that article. CJLippert (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] annoying behavior

I have publicly asked you to stop the behavior towards me and I feel I should also ask you to stop in your talk page. You have publicly called me a spammer, quoted half-truths about my views, and continue to question me about the same issue over and over. I appreciate you helping to teach me about Wikipedia rules, but I feel uncomfortable with your behavior and I am asking you to stop. (Mayormcgeez (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm....I have to admit that you've confused me a little by your responses to this situation, both on the discussion page of the article itself St. Thomas, Ontario and now on my talk page. Our initial disagreement seems to me to have began when a link to a 'want ad' type site was removed from the external links section of the article by myself and a couple of other editors, which you then proceeded to replace. You then stated on the discussion page of the article, that after further consideration you had subsequently come to the conclusion that a link to that particular site, in fact *did* constitute "spam" and believed that it didn't belong in the external links section after all. Subsequent to that, you removed the external link to the only daily newspaper in St. Thomas (The Times Journal) site from the links section of the article and began to make the claim that *that* link constituted "spam" according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but so far you haven't told us why you believe that is the case. I was genuinely hoping that you might explain your reasoning behind that position, but it now appears that for some reason you are unwilling to do that. In my personal opinion, this is a 'no brainer', an external link to the only newspaper in a community of 35,000 that has a daily circulation approaching 7,000 and which takes a 'mainstream' editorial approach covering general news in the community, can only be viewed as a potential asset to the average reader of a Wikipedia article who is looking for fast access to current information regarding a city. Inclusion of this type of external link to a local media site is common practice on Wikipedia, something which I'm assuming you already know. Without further explanation as to why you feel that an external link in this situation is not appropriate, I believe that you are acting arbitrarily in excluding it. I'm prepared to wait a day or so once again to provide you with a further opportunity to explain your position, after that, I support replacing the link to the paper once again and I'm prepared to defend that position through regular 'third party' review processes here on Wiki. By way of compromise, would you support placing an external link to the Times Journal in some sort of 'subsection' for media? Deconstructhis (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

by continuing this behavior that i have asked you to stop, does that mean you refuse to stop?(Mayormcgeez (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I think I've stated my position as clearly as I can, in terms of attempting to encourage you to provide some insight into why you support removing the link in question. In my opinion, it's now up to you. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "Original research" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Nunc pro tunc). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:29 8 December 2007 (GMT).

[edit] St thomas

Thanks for being attentive to the st thomas article. I just dont see any reason why it shouldnt be there, take care Ottawa4ever (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems this editor has decided that the opinion of other people in the matter is irrelevant and that their interpretation of the situation alone should be the end of it, even though it's obvious that others are trying to disagree with them in a reasonable fashion. The posting that they made earlier where they mentioned that the link shouldn't be included in the article until "the controversy is settled", seems somewhat disingenuous to me. It appears this editor feels the "controversy" is *already* settled, simply by them removing the link and ignoring other editors who question that removal. So much for a spirit of collaboration.....

cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For your efforts to keep the peace and resisting the temptations to engage in an edit war on st thomas I award each yourself, Reaper X and jgale061 a barnstar of peace. May you continue to contribute to wikipedia in the dignified fashion you always do

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your efforts to keep the peace and resisting the temptations to engage in an edit war on st thomas I award each yourself, Reaper X and jgale061 a barnstar of peace. May you continue to contribute to wikipedia in the dignified fashion you always do

Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and Barnstar Ottawa4ever! Happy holidays to you. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my comments in support of keeping the link on the St. Thomas talk page. Any idea where things are now? Looks like there is broad support for keeping it. Blotto adrift (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church of the SubGenius

Just a quick note about your change to this article. In general, Masters theses and Doctoral dissertations are not considered reliable sources unless they've been published in a peer-reviewed journal or book. Alabaster Crow (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoping you can help me

Hi, you recently commented on a page about the Canadian group The Revols.
Sadly, all of the Images I've uploaded have now been disputed, a second time, I can't seem to keep them uploaded, as I'm a wikipedia Newbie, and the 2 articles I've created, are the 1st, of what I hope to be many in the future, about the history of Canadian music origins in Perth County.
I attempted this time to upload the newspaper clippings, as "Owner of the copyright" as my original "Fair Use rationale" was disputed, and the images were removed a first time.
This was an obvious mistake I won't make again, as now ALL of the images, even the original prints that were uploaded, are being disputed.
ALL of these images, are hard copy items, OWNED BY the late Ken Kalmusky, inherited by his son, David Kalmusky, and were lent to me, with complete permission to scan, and release the copyright of the images, to the public, for the task of documenting this history on Wikipedia.
I've written several people, hoping someone can mentor me, through properly verifying the copyright permission, to leave these images on Wikipedia permanently.

thanks for your time Qwepasdl (talk)

[edit] Re: Spazchow

Curious why you undid changes to the Barnes and Barnes album Spazchow. The information on "And Other Things Too" were from an interview I did with Art (Billy) shortly before the release of "Sicks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbartilucci (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing your own personal interview as a source for a subject is only acceptable if it was subsequently published in a source regarded as "reliable" for the purposes of Wikipedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Westside page change

Just curious why you reverted the change on adding Neenach to the Westside Union School District page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Union_School_District). Neenach is a small community served by this community. I do consulting there. --Kfasimpaur 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected with apologies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)