User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 Archives |
| *Up to July 2006 |
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Kukini 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
talk page comment
hey pascal, don't know how long you've been on wiki but you should take it easy on the warnings. my edits aren't vandalism and even if they were, its near impossible to get someone banned here. you're welcome to give it a shot though! Justforasecond 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Re:Question about block
Blocking shared IPs for a long period of time is generally discouraged, and in 212.219.22.4's case I actually blocked it too soon and should have gone through the warning messages. Just because someone at the college vandalises doesn't mean that others cant make positive contributions.
Anyway, the IP's vandalism history is actually pretty light compared to most other high school IPs. —Xezbeth 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If the vandalism is very severe and/or offensive, then yes schools have been contacted in the past. And unfortunately, even if someone was to register an account they would still be unable to edit at the school/college thanks to the IP block. —Xezbeth 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thx for the info. Pascal.Tesson 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Raymond Devos
Thanks for your message, and for the time you took in convincing me. Apologies for being stubborn... I have replied in Talk:Raymond Devos. I think we are nearly done (just a few clarifications needed probably). Cheers. --Edcolins 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedman
Pardon me, but I would like to dispute your delete reason that Speedman was not notable in that it was published in black belt magazine. Please email the http://www.thespeedman.com/ or
Telephone
541-535-3188
FAX
(541)-535-8038
Postal address
6252 Dark Hollow Way Medford, OR 97501
Electronic mail
General Information: info@thespeedman.com Sales: sales@thespeedman.com Customer Support: support@thespeedman.com Webmaster: webmaster@thespeedman.com
Doctor La Tourrette can be contacted at: docspeed@cdsnet.net
--Masssiveego 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"A line in the URJ article will do just fine"
If that is your position, AfD is not necessary. Just propose a bunch of merges and get them done, without AfD. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
AfD votes
When I see an AfD, my first reaction is to see if I can improve the article. If the article is unsalvageable, I will go on to the next one without casting a vote, because it's fairly clear that the article will be deleted with or without my vote. If I can improve the article, I do so, and usually mention that I have done so in the vote. In many cases, as the article expands, the notability of its subject increases.
I voted in favour of marché Maisonneuve and marché Lachine because I wrote those articles myself, based on information from the Marchés Publics de Montréal web site http://www.marchespublics-mtl.com
As for lawyers, I would not normally add an article for a generalist lawyer unless they had done something distinctive, but individual lawyers at large corporate law firms often have an interesting combination of academic preparation, professional accomplishments, publications and community involvement. Prudence Watson is a typical example of such a lawyer.
In general, I don't ask whether someone deserves to be listed, but rather what reference value they have. And sometimes they have reference value for an unexpected reason.
I remember, years ago, seeing the documentary film Action: The October Crisis, which dealt with the events of October 1970. There is a brief shot of military vehicles on chemin Sainte-Foy, with the Place Sainte-Foy in the background. The footage must have been taken from the CBC's television station across the street from the shopping centre. And that put Place Sainte-Foy on the map for me in a way that just knowing it as a mall did not. Does that make Place Sainte-Foy notable by Wikipedia standards? I don't know, since quoting precedent doesn't do much good at Wikipedia, but my point is that sometimes a combination of attributes can make something notable, even when the attributes considered individually would not.
And my other point is that Wikipedia has many different audiences with different needs, and perhaps someone who gambles on high school sports or coaches a high school sports team needs articles on high schools in Colorado more than I do.
I hope this helps you understand my Yes votes. I worry that a lot of potentially useful information is being lost through overly vigorous deletion proposals, and I try to improve articles and point out how articles proposed for deletion are in fact useful. TruthbringerToronto 00:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
About your comment in Community Miracles Center and AGF. You do have a point, and you expressed well. In other words, you did not presume bad faith on my part and pointed out a very likely scenario. I have to agree that the scenario is likely, especially since I have been reading more and more about how this group of articles stretched out from the central book. But don't lose faith! :) I don't work on WP as a contributor of information and articles as many others. I tend more to the cleanup, investigation, and administrative processes. I keep a strict neutral perspective and assume nothing at all; i.e. no faith, in either direction. For me, only structure, policy, function and fact are the rules of the day. I don't allow feelings to guide me in my decisions in regards to policy. I haven't any aspirations, except that the encyclopedia results in a good work on the whole. I have close to thirty years of professional computer experience, and I have administrated on clusters with over 6000 simultaneous users. File cleanup may look suspicious of course, but to me it's simply a process, and when there are several files all conjoined at the hip for no particular reason except advertising, when none of them are able to stand up to WP:NOR and WP:VER and when I go through the hours it takes to research cited sources and find them to be obfuscated purposely, it attracts my attention and I dig even more. The important thing to understand here is that it doesn't matter if an article says things which are untrue. The only thing that matters clearly is that the article relects clearly it's sources and that those sources are reputible. Anything that I meet in my path that cannot live up to that policy should be submitted for review by the peers of editors rather than subject to abuse on either side. So one might just say that it is true that I have targeted this group of articles in particular. On the other hand, had those articles been written with good intentions to start with, then their citations would back up what they say. Can you blame me that they made so much spam and that I don't want to take a lot of time cleaning it up? It's not up to me to delete in the end, and there are far worse fates for articles than having a peer review. From an external perspective, consider how do you feel? Is it a bad thing to have an article up for deletion? Or is it neutral? Happy editing and good to meet you. :) Ste4k 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I found another for you to review at your liesure: Link. Ste4k 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the interesting bit you left on my talk page. I am not sure you understood my comment on the CMC AfD page so just in case let me be perfectly clear. I in no way meant (or believe) that you had some sort of malicious intention for nominating it to AfD and apologize if it passed as such. Rather, I was refuting the previous message by trying to say (rather clumsily I might add) that even if that had been the case, it would not have changed a thing about my evaluation: that article is beyond repair and should be clearly recognized as such by the whole wiki community. In any case, I commend you for doing the dirty work. I recently tried to clean up the hotel category myself and faced some heat... By the way, if you have a minute or two, I would appreciate your comments on proposed guidelines I'm trying to setup for hotels at WP:HOTELS. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a funny feeling that I have just met another neutrally aligned person (yourself) for the first time and that we are now trying to see from back-of-eye to back-of-eye. :) When I am perfectly clear, people read it as if my tone of voice is angered. (??) Why? (??) I don't know. Let me say this perfectly clear, but please read it with the tone of an instruction manual for using a pencil:
-
- 1 I thought your comment in AfD was excellent.
-
- a) It assigned no blame
- b) It was a thought I had of my own (about a possibility I should keep an eye out for)
- c) A commonality exists in the possibility you raised and my intent.
- d) No commonality exists in the possibility you raised and my motives.
- e) It deserved an answer, but not an answer in Afd-public.
The reason for my mad rambling above on your page was to say hi, introduce myself, and comment. The liklihood that I misunderstood your comment on CMC AfD is nil. But also, that said, I don't actually consider motives or intent when they are directed at me since such characteristics have little to do with the subject matter at hand. That all said, nice to meet you. I will give the WP:HOTELS my first attention today, this message to you actually being the zeroth. Ste4k 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I reviewed the criteria and left some notes in Discussion on WP:HOTELS. It allowed me some breathing room to look at a wholly new topic without any adversity. For that, you have my thanks. :) It gave me an idea or two regarding notability in general, and also perhaps a new project that you may find interesting to consider, if it doesn't already exist somewhere, and of that I am unaware. I think that some sort of criteria, similar to hotels, should be established for the notability of books. It's one thing to cite a source. It's quite another thing, in my opinion, to write an article about a book. Please see my comments in this regard at: [| Notability and Importance. This particular article came up under AfD by another editor. The article itself was written by an editor whom is suspicious (to say the least) that I have some sort of bias against the article. I do have concerns with the editor and the proliferation of articles which he has made which are for the most part all based on this one article alone, and haven't any other reason or basis to exist, stand alone. In my humble opinion, rather than trying to spread and create an atmosphere about the particular subject that he is interested in, he should instead be concentrating on this article alone in an effort to improve it to the point that it shows some importance for an encyclopedia. Evidently there have been previous nominations to remove the article and it has left a bad taste in his mouth. I believe that he associates me with some sort of cabal or some party that was previously debating the removal. I am doing my best to ignore his repeated accusations which tie in closely with your comments. But also, I am tempted to ask that this article and matter be taken into arbitration. I do not believe that advocacy groups should use a statistic like "numbers of editors that agree", especially when those numbers are anonymous and they are less than the numbers of articles being generated. If you have had any previous experience with arbitration, I would appreciate your comments regarding that sort of decision. I am far too inexperienced to make such a decision at this time. Thanks. Ste4k 09:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your help in cleaning up the multiple vanity/spam edits and links by Sheilrod. I know it took a lot of time. Pollinator 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (WP:WPSPAM)
Hyatt Regency Belgrade
Hi, I want to point out that the timing of my closure is simply a coincidence: I don't make it a point of checking out timestamps, nor do I have any AfDs in my watchlist or anything. I simply went through the backlog of unclosed AfDs to close them. In any case, I made the judgement based on the consensus on the AfD. I don't have any opinions on the topic in question, and I weighed the comments of the keep voters (including the one who changed his vote from delete to keep) as well as the delete voters. Also, though you probably already know this one, I determine consensus: I do not ignore comments simply because anyone disagrees with them. If you believe that my closure was against process, you are welcome to put this up for deletion review, but please be sure that you understand how to do so, and that you let me know that you have put up this AfD up for review. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, you are correct. My apologies, I seem to have mixed the two AfDs up due to their similarity in names and the fact that I've gone through several of these in rapid succession. I'm afraid I have to say that the AfD has had enough votes to let it stand as is. Usually, we would relist AfDs if there are an insufficient number of votes to determine consensus (say, less than five). This one has had plenty of comments, so I don't think anything will be gained by relisting it anymore. When I look at this again, I would probably change this one to a "No consensus", since there is about an even split between keeping and deleting. Sorry for the testy tone I used in the previous debate, I can sometimes be like that if I am interrupted in the middle of a good AfD closure session. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I am more than open to changing the results of AfD closures if someone points it out and I see a case for doing so. And no problems about the talk page, I noticed the last diff and figured it was an honest mistake on your part. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Notability (books)
Hi. I saw your message at naming convetions books, and wanted to let you know that I am working on the page here. Give me a few hours to get it into shape and then please feel free to review, tweak etc.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay it's up and needs lots of work (probably an example section would be appropriate at the very least) but I think it's a good start--Fuhghettaboutit
- Great! Thanks a lot for the support and edits. Hopefully we can hammer this out to a really good guideline without too much contention.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sigh. You're probably right. Oh, by the way, note my comment on the project's talk page. We really need a separate standard for academics I think, but I don't know where to begin. Any thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh you already posted there.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sigh. You're probably right. Oh, by the way, note my comment on the project's talk page. We really need a separate standard for academics I think, but I don't know where to begin. Any thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks a lot for the support and edits. Hopefully we can hammer this out to a really good guideline without too much contention.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairwaylife, you didn't sign your comment. I'm unsure of the template for that, so I thought I'd let you know. I beleive the fault with my links is they are trivial, but they are independent. My keep is very weak, but my personal AfD policy is to keep when in doubt. Cheers. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah! That's the template I was looking for. You're comment is certainly valid, but I personally don't endorse WP:CORP and similar guildines. In my eyes those yellow page sites say that it has had enough impact on the world to merit an article. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly have! I don't completely discard them, but just follow them very loosely. For example, I boil WP:WEB down to "Mentioned 3 times anywhere that isn't itself or someone who worked on it". Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion examples
Great work! I think one of the things most lacking in some of the other notability criteria is such a section providing real examples of how the criteria is applied. I hope you don't mind, but I do think the first one (the algebra textbook) should be removed, at least for right now. I have specifically stated in the first section that the criteria do not cover textbooks (which I added after the comments on the talk page), so that deletion debate is not relevant. It also doesn't explicitly cite much policy, mostly speaking of nonsense which you can't see without looking at the deleted article.
Ideally, it would be really useful to find deletion debates that squarely fit within various policy criteria as a basis and then each one can be introduced aloing with the main policy under which it was deleted. The last one for instance is perfect for crystalballism and could be listed something like:
- For an example of an article deleted primarily under our policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpentslayer.
- --Fuhghettaboutit 05:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpentslayer.
Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort
Have you seen this AfD? Ste4k 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
El-Gouna
Hi, I take your point that there is a tendency for spam for non-notable resorts to masquerade as articles. OTOH there's well-established precedent for keeping articles about verifiable places and settlements. El-Gouna seems to me to sit somewhere in between as it's only about 15 years old and man-made. On balance, I'm going with keep since it really exists (but I certainly won't be heart-broken if it gets deleted). Dlyons493 Talk 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You say: cleanup all the spam in the hotel articles. Now why do the words Augean stables spring to mind :-) But heartfelt good luck anyway! Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hotel, motel, Holiday Inn...
I've prodded a couple of the articles on individual hotels that you tageed for notability. Don't be afraid to do the same. While I respectfully disagree with you on Microtel, I would also like to see the 'pedia purged of some of this hotelcruft thats been popping up. I have no problem with having articles on chains or even particularly notable individual hotels, but its getting a bit ridiculous. Anyhow, thanks for tackling this thankless job. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is the proposal just for individual hotels? I'll give it a look and give you some feedback on the prop's talk page in a day or two. So far, it generally looks good, but I might have a couple of ideas for minor tweaks and whatnot. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Time to advertize
Hey. It's moving right along wouldn't you say? You said over at the guideline talk page that you were surprised at how few people had joined in the discussion. Well I think we're at a point where we need to get the word out to the community, so I checked around to see where policies/guidelines are listed and found Wikipedia:How to create policy. There it is suggested we can post this to/ask for discussion at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, Wikipedia:Current surveys as well as link to this on the Community bulletin board at Wikipedia:Community Portal. I'm gonna get started making entries. Brace yourself; as you said on my talk page when I expressed hope that that it wouldn't generate too much controversy "Dream on".--Fuhghettaboutit 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. The survey page explicitly makes clear that it should be used for pages which have already gone through extensive discussion, so posting there would be premature. The bulletin board is less clear, but I'm going to hold off until hopefully we have a straw poll going on adopting it, which we can announce there.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have additionally posted to Wikipedia:Surveys and at afd's talk page. What do you think of the recent academic section?--Fuhghettaboutit 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody signing my name
Wow! Thanks for the heads up! I don't even know that article, so I am not the author. Again, thanks! GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Pascal (you probably know this), you can check who edits the article by clicking the history tab at the top of any article; that'll show who put in what comment. Wikipedia editors almost never use IPs then sign their name with them, as that can create a lot of confusion, and also give vandals the opportunity to use an IP and say they're a certain editor. Hope that helps and cheers, Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 06:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: AFD
Just an omission on my part. Thanks for the catch. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again!
I've been working on a little algorithm and would appreciate your opinion.
void consider(char *article) {
char **sources;
int x;
if (has_sources(article)) {
sources=check_sources(article);
for (x=0; x<count(sources); x++) {
if (wp:rs(sources[x])) {
if (!(pertains_to(article,sources[x]))) {
(void)delete_source(sources[x]);
x=count(sources);
(void)consider(article);
} else (void)affirm(article);
} else {
(void)delete_source(sources[x]);
x=count(sources);
(void)consider(article);
}
}
} else {
if (find_sources(&sources,article)) {
error=add_sources(&article,sources);
if (!(error)) {
(void)add_content(&article,extract(sources));
} else consider(something_else);
} else (void)delete(article);
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
(void)consider("Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Buell_Anderson");
}
Thanks. :) Ste4k 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Contribs
With this edit you added a category to the template, but didn't surround it with nowiki tabs, which meant that every page using that template was placed in the category. Easy enough to fix once I found the problem, but try and remember to use those noinclude's in future! See Category:Internal link templates heading section for the details. Cheers, Petros471 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Invitation by e-mail
Hi there!
I enjoyed reading the link you dropped on book sales in the notability book debate. I hope you're off camping and having fun, but if not... You would be a good feedback resource, I think, on what looks to be a far reaching 'Meta-project'.
As a participant on the French wikipedia and a computer savvy professional you can be of great service to a matter that should be of far more importance than literary notablility guidlines. There is a matter that needs testing on a non-English wikipedia and you look to be a perfect accomplice in proving that aspect. Please see this for more. // Thanks FrankB 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you help give a broader view in a straw poll?
Hi Pascal, I started a straw poll yesterday to get some perspective from a broader range of editors. It is listed at WP:POLL#Articles. I have asked a couple other editors to supply some feedback in poll, and while I was here on your page span-marking an earlier comment I thought I'd ask you to take a look. Ste4k 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste your time please. I've retracted the poll. Thanks though. Ste4k 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hotels
I answered on my talk page.
Cross Fell - GAC
Pascal. Thankyou for promoting Cross Fell to Good Article status. Should you ever have inclination and opportunity to climb Cross Fell, let me know and either my son or I will be pleased to act as your guide. Bob BScar23625 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anchor AFD
Based on your participation at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Russell, I thought you'd like to know that the AFD has been restarted and moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination), where you can vote on it a second time. JianLi 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WPVI-TV_Anchors JianLi 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
constructive
I am a respected user with a long history on wikipedia. If you intend on Woody being a featured article at some point, the article will need citations. Don't shoot the messenger.
Justforasecond 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's easy -- every statement needs a citation. For instance, none of this has a citation:
- Allen was born in New York City to a Jewish family of Austrian and Russian ancestry. His parents, Martin Königsberg (born on December 25, 1900 in New York; died on January 13, 2001) and Netty Cherrie (born in 1908 in New York; died in January 2002), and his sister, Letty (born 1943), lived in Flatbush, Brooklyn. He attended Hebrew school for eight years, and then went to Public School 99 (P.S. 99) and to Midwood High School. During that time, he lived in part on Avenue K, between East 14th and 15th Streets. Nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair, he impressed students with his extraordinary talent at card and magic tricks.
- To raise money he began writing gags for the agent David O. Alber, who sold them to newspaper columnists. Reportedly, Allen's first published joke was "I am at two with Nature." At sixteen, he started writing for stars like Sid Caesar and began calling himself Woody Allen. He was a gifted comedian from an early age and would later joke that when he was young he was often sent to inter-faith summer camps, where he "was savagely beaten by children of all races and creeds."
- For all we know, someone made it up. And btw, Pascual, remember to assume good faith. Justforasecond 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Filed
I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Frédéric Dard
Actually I was dealing with several non-notable articles when I left that. It showed up again on my watch list after a long time not on it and I noticed the notability tag was still there and the article hadn't be added to included I simply tagged it as such it had been a busy two weeks going through all of them. I can't remember every detail about every article. I'll point out the situation wasn't serious, someone removed the prod, and to read WP:AGF. --Crossmr 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry
hey pascal
yesterday you were standing up for me -- sorry i wasn't more grateful. i've also added a couple references. a lot of the woody early life information is available online at several places -- here [1] for instance.
Justforasecond 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page, I appreciate it. :-) -/- Warren 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
shortened article
I think firefox accidentally chops off the articles sometimes. Not sure whassup with that. Anyway, looks like we're on the same page with citations now. I think Woody is becoming a pretty good article!
Justforasecond 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah it did look very similar to the wiki article. I'm not sure what to do about it -- could be a problem for wiki in general. This outside source didn't acknowledge wiki, but they may have used it as a source. If the wiki material was incorrect, now this outside website could be compromised with incorrect info, but can be used as a citable source inside wiki (since its not a blog). It also could be a copyvio but its impossible to tell since the first wiki editor didn't insert sources. Ugh
- Justforasecond 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Goodness of Computational Complexity Theory
I'm new to wikipedia but I'd like to help out with the "goodness" of the computation complexity page. I don't want to just jump in and start editing so I guess I'm looking for a little guidance on how to get started. Should I just start proposing changes on the discussion page and see what people think? I think the areas mentioned there for the removal of the "good" status all need covering - is there anything else that you think should be added?
I'll be fairly busy for the next month or so, but most of that is preparing an introduction to computational complexity for the lay person that does cover those additional areas, so after I've got that done I think I should be able to provide some kind of contribution.DaveAU 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Disney articles
I did not remove content that was critical of Disney, I simply deleted the many, many weasel words that are spread throughout the Disney theme park articles and replaced them with neutral ones. As for removing the advertisement tags, I completely replaced the old articles, which were copied and pasted from official Disney brochures. The tags thus have nothing at all to do with the current articles, hence the deletion.
Disney articles on Wikipedia have a tendency to read like either a Disney fan forum or an offocial brochure. Excuse me for trying to NPOV them.
Musicians associated with cannabis use
I made that a new page due to the fact that the overall length was perhaps bringing down the quality of the Cannabis culture page, if you have a better idea please propose it on the talk page. Until you confront me with specifics I will disregard and delete your unhelpful and rather annoying template. ReverendG 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I consider it a warning regarding the condition of an article i have special interest in. Why are you monitering my talk page? ReverendG 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What you feel about my talk page is not important. You must respect how editors choose to organize their pages. They are not considered part of wikipedia. Please do not do that again or I may have to report it as vandalism. ReverendG 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- dude, please, I changed the section name so it's accurate. I don't think anyone is going to read it and get a negative reaction of you just because of the section I put it under. As for editing your comment, i'm not sure what you mean by that. Leave my talk page alone. I like the warnings about impending change to be grouped. I voted for you on the AfD page, against myself no less. ReverendG 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Also, this once again proves that you refuse to discuss changes before making them. This is a group project, you're not an administrator, quit acting with assumed authority. ReverendG 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I just got your most recent message, please disregard the rudeness of the proceeding comment. Your initial point was correct (not the one about my talk page, the one on stoned musicians (damn, wikipedians argue about some unusual things)) I am sorry for treating you rudely, but i do think it's best if major changes are discussed first. ReverendG 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What you feel about my talk page is not important. You must respect how editors choose to organize their pages. They are not considered part of wikipedia. Please do not do that again or I may have to report it as vandalism. ReverendG 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Elio Camacho
Sorry, just following the guidelines. I was going to list it afd myself when I removed it the first time, but real life intruded. Catchpole 06:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
