User talk:Rklawton/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

A small request

Hey there Robert, how have you been? Awhile back I gave you a huge list of Sprigfield sites that I said I needed photos of. I am not particularly concerned about most of those requests, you can feel free to disregard them, in fact I would quite enjoy being able to do them myself, of course don't let that stop you. : ) I was, however, wondering if it might be possible for you to obtain photos of the Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop in Springfield, if you happen to be around there anytime. I would very much like to expand the article but don't really want to unless I can illustrate it. Basically some good exterior shots, the whole of the building and, importantly, anything associated with the drive thru window system, and what would be really great is some shots of the interior, a great bonus for any article and sometimes hard to obtain. Anyway, if you cannot do it I will understand but if you could let me know either way that would be great. Thanks and take care. IvoShandor 11:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be heading up there in the next month or so. Thanks for the ideas! Rklawton 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "It" is, not "We" are

You aren't an owner of wikipedia are you cowboy? --Elred 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for holding the fort over on my talk page while I was away! I really appreciate it! - Alison ☺ 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Texas Technological College Dairy Barn

Hi, Robert. The picture you took of the Dairy Barn represents what's there, of course. I was just hoping that there might be a way to take it from a more flattering angle. Does that make sense? I guess it's the difference between George W. Bush's official presidential photo and the shot of him falling off of a Segway PT. They both reprsent him, but the first shows him in a better light (the second one is pretty funny though). At least Tech saved the barn — for which I am grateful — but until they show more interest in it, is there a way of getting a picture that makes it look less ugly-ish, aside from dressing it up in a skirt or putting cheerleaders in front of it. I added it to the Texas Tech template so hopefully more traffic will be headed to the article. Let me know what you think. →Wordbuilder 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The only way to know for sure is to go there and take a bunch of pictures of it. I suggest you do that before you knock someone else's work. Rklawton 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. As a gesture of peace, I offer you this olive branch... →Wordbuilder 02:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ??

I have discovered an apparent sockpuppet, however he is not conducting mutiple edits, so I'm not sure if I can use WP:SOCK. However, I noticed that User talk:BS 0013 redirects to User talk:BS 13. Are they the same? And should something be done? Thanks Tiggerjay 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I should have (got around to) answer this on my talk page. The editor above isn't socking but has created a redirect to another page in talk space. It's a bit unorthodox, but I don't think there's anything in the rules against it. If they don't like their username, they could change it. But their is only one account at work here. Have you tried discussing it with them? - Alison ☺ 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Multiple accounts are allowed. Sock puppets are not. I saw no evidence of Sock puppetry, so I left it alone. Rklawton 00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks. :) Tiggerjay 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Break Wikipedia

Sorry to bother you, i just found it, should i continue to watch the page for any more developments? Chaza93 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Rklawton 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Found Potential Target for Next edits, Grass, more edits made, Ryan Giggs - Stated he slept with Teddy Shringham - will continue to watch page for now, blocked user already making future intentions known. Are now seeing how long edits last. Chaza93review 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK they have banned my 1st user name, BUT i have made another, and will remain without adding any posts, and continue to watch for any further updates Chaza93review 18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've registered with the site, but it looks like that particular thread has been removed. Rklawton 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of the childhood obesity link to the message board.

The reason I considered posting that link was because all of the statistics in that section of the messageboard are from credible sources in the science community and from the government. That website acts as a repository where you can find numerous childhood obesity studies from various reliable sources, all in one location. Generally I agree that I wouldn't take random statistics off a messageboard, but they really do have a credible childhood obesity "database" like setup.

That's great. Then just follow those links and add published studies to the article. The article sure could use it. Rklawton 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for that. I so don't need this today. Thanks for keeping watch - Alison ☺ 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like that takes the uncertainty out of blocking. Now, about your day… Go add some nicely sourced facts to a favorite article and forget about those nasty old vandals for awhile. Rklawton 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Turner

Correct, trivia sections should not be removed. If there's important information, it should be merged with the main article. But anything unimportant should be deleted. A mention on Robot Chicken is hardly important information. 17Drew 04:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

True and true. If nothing is useful then something like "no useful content" would be better than removing the section and citing "trivia" because that might give folks the wrong impression about trivia sections. If you wish to remove this section again, please do so. Rklawton 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Belginusanl

Hi Robert. I noticed you've been reverting external link additions by User:Earpearcing and User:Cybergirl215. These appear to be sockpuppets of Belginusanl, so feel free to list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when edits like those crop up again. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers - Gobeirne 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted notes on the respective talk pages. If they start up again, I'll just block them. And thanks! Rklawton 04:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Obvious sock. Rklawton 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Robert - I'm not positive about this one: User:Cubamen. The name and edit pattern hint very strongly, but he hasn't done anything offensive yet. I've reverted anyway, but haven't added a sock notice. Just keep an eye on him I suppose. Cheers - Gobeirne 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Jagzthebest

First I'd like to provide some background information. You are no doubt aware of the events leading up to Jagzthebest's initial indefinite block. A bit more than a week ago I found that Jagzthebest was using an alternate account, MasterJag (talk · contribs), to circumvent his block. MasterJag's edit history consisted of minor corrections to Tekken-related articles and a nasty snipe at you on Jagzthebest's talk page[1]. Less then a day after I blocked the account, I received a conciliatory e-mail from Jagzthebest offering the suggested image and rationale example I had requested almost two months prior. Although the image and rationale were still not in line with Wikipedia policy, I assumed good faith of the effort and unblocked Jagzthebest's account. I warned him that uploading images in contravention of policy, insulting any editor, and other unbecoming behavior would result in an indefinite block.

Jagzthebest used this opportunity wisely, and after a few initial questions, he was back to constructive editing and I had no reason to monitor his contributions. Then, yesterday, I received a frankly distressing and unsightly message from Jagzthebst[2]. What was odd about this is that he had chosen to reproduce the profane vandalism as the message header, followed by "see that above? some guy wrote it under your comment on my page. now why was that?". Aside from the dubious reasoning behind even framing the message in such a manner, I was concerned about why some IP I had never interacted with would place a personal attack beneath my comment on someone's talk page. That is, until I looked at user:71.125.83.31's other contributions. Among these were edits to several Tekken character articles, articles never before edited by Jagzthebest, and changing another user's external link to point to [3]. Since the IP's contributions indicated someone from the United Kingdom who was interested in Tekken and went out of his way to identify and attack a comment on the talkpage of Jagzthebest, it was rather obvious that this was a sockpuppet. Since I did not closely monitor Jagzthebest's contributions or talk page, I did not notice the addition of the profane jab, which was for some reason reproduced in full on my talkpage a day later. It is my conclusion that, due to the previously documented immaturity and tendency to personally attack users, this IP was Jagzthebest attempting to slide in, for some weird reason, an insult against a user who had previously blocked him. After warning him of an indefinite block for any unbecoming behavior, I felt it necessary to follow through.

I would like to apologize for not leaving a reason in the block log, it seems I was to eager to skip to the "block this user" button. This has no doubt caused some problems with Jagzthebest's unblock request and I did not mean to inconvenience the review by other admins. Now that you are aware of the reasons and story behind this block, I would appreciate your review. If you think that my actions were too harsh or unfounded, feel free to unblock Jagzthebest's account. After many e-mails, blocking, tagging, and unblocking sockpuppets/alternate accounts, bizarre questions and personal attacks, I no longer wish to have anything to do with this user or monitoring his actions. I do not think that he has the requisite maturity or judgment to become a responsible contributor and I do not wish to babysit him. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that after all the e-mail counseling, Jagzthebest still does not understand Wikipedia image use policy[4]. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef sounds good to me. Rklawton 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Flag

I would have appreciated a discussion, but the Lincoln Flag section is not a copyright violation. I am the author of the section on Wikipedia and on the original source, http://www.united-states-flag.com/lincoln-flag.html. I have placed a blatant GNU Free Documentation License on the bottom of the original article. Writers would probably appreciate a warning before you go and delete their writing while they are in the process of editing it. (MandyBarberio 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

We also don't accept self-published sources. Rklawton 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any restrictions of that nature in the About Wikipedia content sections. I am a copywriter for several websites, but I am not the owner of the websites, so I'm not necessarily "self-published." Could you please show me any useful information on this topic, since I can find none? (MandyBarberio 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)). (RfC)

Also, I am not sure how describing how an artifact involved in the assasination of Abraham Lincoln is in any way self-promotional. I appreciate that you changed your reason for deleting the article, but your reason is only your opinion of it. Other people might find that information useful. (MandyBarberio 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).

When you use as a reference a link to the self-same article on an e-commerce website, it's both original research and WP:SPAM. The section itself is also massively trivial in relation to the article's subject. Rklawton 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The link used is original content, and the relevant sources are listed along with the original article. The article is purely informational. If the section should be an independent article, that is fine, but I don't want to create an article if you are going to delete it again. (MandyBarberio 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) (RfC)

The section doesn't belong in the assassination article any more than articles about his shoes or bedsheets. Links to sources that don't satisfy our criteria for reliable sources need not be included. All information provided within the article/section must be reliably and verifiably sourced. If you wish to create an article on this subject, please review the links about creating articles posted on the top of your talk page. I promise not to delete such an article out of hand, but if one is created without appropriate sources (per above), I'll nominate it for deletion. From there, editors will have five days to offer comments - and a different administrator will review the discussion and make a decision. Rklawton 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously that is your opinion on the subject. So, you are telling me that if I provide a link to the original article, you will nominate it for deletion again, regardless of the copyright notices and everything else? It seems that every editor has different "rules" and uses references to try to prove them. I wish to have another editor review this whole situation because I feel that the deletion was unfair with reasoning opinionated and unproven. How can I have another editor review the situation now instead of wasting more of my time rewriting the article to have it nominated for deletion? (MandyBarberio 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

If you created a new article (as opposed to re-adding this section to the assassination article again), I would remove the link to any sources that fails our reliability requirements. If I then nominated this new article for deletion, many editors would review it, and some other administrator (we have over 1,000 active administrators) would make the decision. My recommendation to you, is that if you are keen on this particular topic, then create a new article rather than add it to the assassination article. By the way, if you do, I wouldn't object to a link under the "see also" section to the new article. Rklawton 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And that would be a copyright infringement, so the article would undoubtedly be deleted for that reason. Is there another category I could create, and list the original article under that? (MandyBarberio 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Good point. I stand corrected. Under the terms of GDFL, you would have to attribute the article to its source, and so I can not remove the link. However, you'll still need verifiable and reliable sources within the article since the GDFL source isn't what we would consider to be reliable. And the assassination article still isn't the appropriate place to put your article. Rklawton 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had initially included the two sources I used: http://www.pikehistory.org/lincoln.htm & http://www.nps.gov/archive/foth/index2.htm, along with the link to the original article. So basically the only problem with the content I posted was its location in the Lincoln Assasination article? Everything else was just a misunderstanding? (MandyBarberio 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Assuming the two other sources support all the claims and assuming that these articles are from reliable sources, then yes, I think that sums it up. Rklawton 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. (MandyBarberio 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

And I apologize for mistaking your edits for copyright violations. Oh, and for the link thingy. I'm supposed to know this stuff. Rklawton 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's alright. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm just figuring things out. (MandyBarberio 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

FYI, posted to MandyBarberio's talk page: I respectfully disagree with Rklawton's good faith opinion that the Lincoln flag info should go in a separate article. My personal opinion is that it is appropriate for the Lincoln assassination article, and that there may not be enough information to merit a separate article. Perhaps a redirect of "Lincoln Flag" to the assassination article would be OK. But I think all of this is a matter of opinion. As long as the information is properly sourced I'm agreeable with either location. And I think if the only legitimate sources have advertisements, it's OK to cite those. Ward3001 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page: "Spam (but we're stuck with it because of the GDFL license unless we want to rewrite the section). Status: resolved."

I can remove the GDFL license from the original article, but then I'm sure I'd be tagged for a copyright violation. That is why I posted it there in the first place. (MandyBarberio 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I wouldn't worry about it. A brief explanation on the article's talk page should do the trick. Rklawton 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you come to my aid if I do that, and someone still posts a copyright violation? (MandyBarberio 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Yup. And you can't point them to the article's talk page, too. Rklawton 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have redone the Lincoln Flag article, expanding it to include the 3 Lincoln Assassination flags that are accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Assassination_Flags. To try to solve the copyright problems, I only cited my original aritlce in the "Other Resources" section, and I will remove the free copyright notice from the original article, so others know it is a realiable source. (MandyBarberio 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

I'll take a look. But as I recall, you posted the original article on an e-commerce website, and that's not a reliable source. However, the other articles you cite in your article might be. Expaning the article to include other flags was a good idea. You might consider adding Lincoln's bedsheet, nightshirt, and hair. I seem to recall that a lot of pieces of those were given away. Maybe title the article something like "Lincoln assassination momentos". Rklawton 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

unblock

im asking you to please unblock ibm44, it has been over a month now - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intel44 (talk • contribs)

User(s) blocked - editor went on to do the vandalism/insults thing, also blanking your userpage. Blocked as a sock of the aforementioned editor - Alison ☺ 05:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clemente Gomez-Rodriguez

My understanding of the word "writer" is someone that has written a book. Dr. Gomez has written a book and is writing his second book. Besides that in Cuba he would also write various articles in legal journals. What is your definition of a writer? And what is Wikipedia's? Callelinea 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And if his book was discussed in TV programs? would that be considered a review? His book which is about some of his court cases has been discussed in local TV stations in South Florida. Is that considered as reviews?Callelinea 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callelinea"

I wouldn't call that notable, no. Rklawton 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Thank you for your advice on talk pages. I will take it on board. Archifile 04:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A favor

I hope that you are not in the habit of placing your comments on other users' talk pages smack dab in the middle of someone else's comments. I saw that I had a new message, opened my discussion page, and looked for nearly five minutes before I found your comments—located between the first and second points of another user's discussion of diacritics. I presume that this wasn't deliberate, but I can't imagine how one could have done it accidentally, either. Some people get in such a rage over things that they don't really see what they're doing; but not knowing you I cannot presume that, either. Well, if you were flying off the handle, better that your loss of control occurred on my talk page and not while driving down the street where you could have actually hurt someone.

I completely disagree with your characterization of my tag removal as disruption. I am familiar with WP: POINT, and I sincerely believe that it does not apply here. Why? There is no defined period under which the RDT is supposed to remain. Most of the ones that I have removed have been over a month old, some over three months old. Is that disruption? If not, what is? Where is the line drawn? Clearly, 24 hours is too soon for removal, if one subscribes to the notion that such tags serve a purpose. But is one week? I sincerely believe I do a favor if I "update" the encyclopedia where out of date information exists. Don't you do the same? But when is an RDT out of date? Where is that guideline written? It may very well exist, but I have yet to have anyone show me, and I am not familiar enough with the "backstage" of Wikipedia to find it myself.

Anyway, I provided a rationale for my actions. The courtesy of responding to my points, before threatening an editor who has a two-year history of editing without a single block or even a threat thereof, might be expected. Unschool 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Rklawton 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
More on my talk page. Thanks! Unschool 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maid-Rite

Awesome photos. Thanks a bunch, greatly appreciated. : ) IvoShandor 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jagzthebest

Hi this is Jagzthebest (I'm logged out and writing from my IP address). This message is about the protection template on my page. Anither admin has replaced yours with one which is more specific. However the template you originally set was supposed to expire on August 7th 2007 (Today). The Template has not yet been removed. I think the admin who placed this template did not set it to expire. Could you please remove the template? thanks. 90.196.241.112 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (Jagzthebest)

OOps I'm such an idiot. 7th August is tommorow. We'll see then. Sorry! 90.196.241.112 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been indef blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are not welcome to edit Wikipedia under any account or any IP address. Any accounts created by you and identified as such will be immediately indef blocked. Rklawton 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Assistance

Rklawton - thanks for your assistance in the past. I was wondering if you can assist with a current dispute on an article. I am asking several admins to review a list of links for reliably. If you can simply take a moment and comment on those sources which are reliable enough for WP policy. Please see: User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1 Thanks in advance Tiggerjay 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Two different bridges

There is one on Arvand River in Khoramshahr and there is one on Karun, they look different as well. Check the talk page, and PManderson's comment. --Mardavich 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me the satellite image. Rklawton 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
See my reply on the article's talk page, the bridge can be seen in the background of the picture, but the photo itself is taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab. If you have a photograph of New Jersey with New York in background, the photo is still of New Jersy, not New York. Things are not as clear cut as you indicate, so please do not make threats of using your community-entrusted tools against editors with whom you're in a content dispute. This is highly inappropriate for an administrator. --Mardavich 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in a content dispute. The satellite images make it clear there is no dispute. I am attempting to determine whether or not your edits are vandalism (bad data) or simple mistake. To that end, I've made it clear to you that I've assumed good faith on your part up until now. Your future actions will illustrate whether or not this was a correct assumption, and I will take the appropriate steps as needed. Rklawton 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, the satellite images are subjective, they can be interpreted in different ways, and I have provided sufficient rational that the image was taken on Arvand River/Shat al-Arab, therefore my edit edits are not "vandalism", and you're inappropriately threating me with a block when I am in a dispute with you. I don't want to drag this on, but if I have to, I would take this all the way to ArbCom. --Mardavich 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the ArbCom would consider satellite images subjective. Rklawton 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Rklawton, the satellite image proves that there is a bridge on Karoun, but it doesn't prove that this image was not taken on Arvand River. How can you say beyond a doubt that the image was taken on Karoun, and not Arvand River/Shat al-Arab? It's the same water, and for all we know the image was taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab with Karun in the background, and there hasn't been any solid evidence to prove otherwise beyond a doubt. In such cases, you assume good faith with the information provided by the up-loader of the image, and that clearly says the image was taken on Arvand river/Shatt al-Arab.--Mardavich 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The photographer does not state where he was standing when he took the photo. This image makes it clear that he couldn't have been standing anywhere in or across the Shatt al-Arab. Where he was standing isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. What matters is whether or not the image illustrates the Shatt al-Arab. It clearly does not. Rklawton 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written to a friend who is a former resident of Mohammareh/Khorramshahr and he confirms what you have said - this is a bridge over the Karoon and the Shatt al-Arab cannot be seen. The shipwrecks are probably left over from the Iran-Iraq War as the Karoon and Mohammareh were the worst affected places in the war, so perhaps the photograph can be used on relevant articles, although I am not convinced this is the best illustration of the Arvand Zone (Arvand is the Farsi name for Shatt al-Arab). I quite like the photograph.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

True, it's probably not the best image of "development," but I like the mix of old and new. As with any text or image, I'd be thrilled to see it replaced with something even more suitable. Rklawton 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Barbaraalton

Thanks for telling me; how did you find out about it? To be honest, I didn't know there was news coverage about that user. All I did was delete the user/user talk page because they'd been in CAT:TEMP for some time! I didn't expect to get slightly mentioned in a news article for the deletion of those pages. Wow... Acalamari 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I have a news feed that keys on "Wikipedia." I seem to recall blocking (or at least warning) that user once or twice, so I read the article with interest and thought you might want a heads up. Cheers - Rklawton 21:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, thanks. :) Acalamari 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK violations on Ward Churchill

Since you're new to editing the article, I'll assume that you're innocently seeing a very long edit conflict afresh. Basically, two editors, Getaway and Verklempt have been using the article for about two years as a means of writing a soapbox editorial about how much they dislike Churchill... and pointedly, not writing a biography that conforms with WP:BLP. Most especially, the large-scale tightenings of WP:BLP over that period (starting with its creation) mean that most of what they have added are policy violations on Wikipedia.

The form their edits have almost always taken (after I pushed back hard on completely unsubstantiated opinion-mongering) is putting in cited facts, usually quotes from various third parties who dislike Churchill; and put there in such a way as to overshadow and outweigh any factual discussion of the biography subject. The Barry quote is a good example: it doesn't add any additional information about Churchill's ethnic background, which is already perfectly well covered in the section, it just provides and ad hoc opportunity to insert a quote from someone criticizing Churchill. I see you are an experienced editor, so you know that mere verifiability is not enough, you also need balance, and avoiding undue weight. The Barry quote violates this aspect of WP:BLP rather grossly. LotLE×talk 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to balance your concerns against POV pushing from his ideological supporters, too. The quote in question isn't just a random person who doesn't like Churchill. It's significant and highly illustrative. Rklawton 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The ethnicity section—other than a coatrack attempt—is supposed to be about, y'know, Churchill's ethnicity. Not about his "deception" or something. The statement from the Keetowah about honorary membership entirely performs the clarification. Berry's comment impugning Churchill's motives (whether she's right or wrong) adds absolutely nothing other than one more attempt to poke at Churchill with a stick by some POV editors.
If the Berry comment could actually be put in context of maybe the "misconduct issues" article, it might make sense. However, given that all his critics here are unable to locate any evidence that any of that related to misconduct (i.e. CU states there's no such consideration of ethnicity), it's tough to put there also. Where it is, it just sticks out like a sore thumb, putting in an editorial criticism instead of a factual biography. Mere attribution doesn't change that a whit. LotLE×talk 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it goes a long way toward clarifying Churchill's ethnicity and well explains the lenghts he has gone to make fraudlent claims. The citation and quote used both help explain why a reader may encouter conflicting claims and their bogus nature. Rklawton 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship

FYI:

Although you might look a long time for someone who genuinely denies that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, I don't see how enforcing specific government types in the infobox and having "Dictatorship" as one of them is any different policy-wise from the category or the list. Gazpacho 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - Mashinini

Thank you for creating the ref links on the Mashinini article. I should have done it in the first place, but for some reason find that particular task rather daunting. Now that it is done I can and will improve/expand citations for the article. --AStanhope 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AryeitskiySaldat evading block

User:AryeitskiySaldat is obviously evading the block by editing as IP Special:Contributions/68.222.34.149 at Nazi Germany. I'm not sure if I'm on solid ground reverting him under WP:3RR#Exceptions - it seems borderline to me, so I've left it. Nor could I find a page to report this kind of situation. Pls block the IP as well (or advise as to how I should proceed). Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked the IP sock and extended the block on the main account. If you wish to report future 3 revert violiations, click here. If you wish to report this particular user, don't hesitate to let me know. Since he is basically POV pushing, his edits count as "content disupte." Therefore, you'll want to stay under three reverts per day. For the duration of his block, however, editors can revert any of his sock edits as "block evasion." However, I highly recommend focusing your energy on building your case on the article's talk page. Once you've done so, consider submitting a request for comment. You'll get the attention of a lot of editors when you do - which is why you'll want to build your source-based case first. Your approach to this problem has been appropriate. Keep up the good work! Rklawton 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll do as you suggest if he turns up again once the block expires. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For your review

Another user replaced a "free image" that I had on the Rick Ankiel article with this fair-use AP one Image:CGNQzHVu.jpg. I replaced this obviously "replaceable" fair use one in the article back with the free one. I had to chuckle at the irony of that but I figured you would approve. AgneCheese/Wine 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! BTW, Archive your talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

floruit

Hi RK. Yes, it's a relatively obscure term all right but known in the legal profession. I'd say Frank, being a lawyer, is using it in that way. From the Latin, it literally means, "flourished", which is a nice way to refer to someone's life IMO. But given that Frank has a serious amount on his plate right now and given that it's in userspace, I'd personally just let it go. Over to you - Alison ☺ 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not supported by the MoS, and it's changing what G wanted us to see. I think would should protect the page at G's last revision (plus the appropriate categorizations). However, I think your judgement is best in this matter. Rklawton 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Pmailing you now ... - Alison ☺ 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSim

Replied here. → AA (talk) — 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert Rule

Sorry about that - didn't check the edit history when three edit conflicts came up, which caused my breaking the rule inadvertently.Djg2006 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario

Hello.

Could you please take a look at the long edit war on Perro de Presa Canario?

This is a breed of dog that has been responsible for two highly publicized fatal maulings in the United States over the past 6 years. I have dispassionately included summaries and citations for both of these events in the article and a small cabal of breeders/owners/sellers insists on removing all references to the killings citing "hysteria" on my part.

For my part, I'm not taking a POV wrt this article beyond believing that the maulings are relevant and should be included in the article. The breed-lovers who insist on removing the mauling citations are clearly taking a strong POV and exerting it upon the article.

Would you lend your eyes to the issue, svp? Thank you. --AStanhope 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See endless back and forth on this issue including a good-faith offer directly to Astanhope to come to some sort of constructive solution - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astanhope&diff=prev&oldid=137688886 - which, by the way, went completely ignored - perhaps he was unable to respond and the offer escaped his mind while in the midst of one of his numerous disciplinary timeouts.

I'm not a breeder, dealer, etc. (see PdPC discussion, item 1) Second, this prolific vandal, Astanhope (or one of several sock puppet identities he's been posting under - Gauche, Timeonmyside1, 75.51.66.234 - while being blocked for vandalism) has been working the article for full hysterical bedwetter impact by habitually reposting, for the past several months, the bold header "Attacks Against People," and various gratuitous representations of the gruesome details. Third, it's a well-established fact that the dogs involved in the Whipple tragedy were, in fact, mastiff mixes: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45596.asp - and you know, if it's in an actual ODT publication, it must be true - I seem to recall one of his multiple identities making this argument at some point. Frangible 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't list individual accidents for cars. However, we do publish safety study results. If there are any safety studies done for these animals, then I think we should include them in the article. Other than that, it's a content dispute, and admins are on equal turf with editors in such cases. Rklawton 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives Index

All baseball sources say 1917 - and the Rizzuto family has confirmed the date. (including BB Biographical Committee, Retrosheet, BBRef.com, Ron Liebman, etc.) The mistake came when Rizzuto mentioned in a few interviews that he lied by a year when he played (then listed as 1918) but error was corrected decades ago (soon after his 1956 retirement as player). Administrators to Wikipedia accepted 1917. NY Post is also, at times, proven to be an unreliable source. (DDNB picked up wrong year from an old Wikipedia listing - since corrected). --KrazyChicken 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Robert, have you considered archiving this page? It's really, really long, I had to scroll for a bit just to get past the contents. :) IvoShandor 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia?

It's funny, but I seem to have a shadow on Wikipedia called AhvaziKaka. He crops up specifically to contradict me - in fact, his account appears to be almost completely dedicated to this task: [5] [6] [7]. Having only a few edits on his account and having not contributed for over a month, this user suddenly decides to make a comment on a proposal for a Wiki project on Arabs, naturally contradicting me [8]. The purpose appears to be that he is the "true voice" of Ahwazi Arabs, and I am the "false voice". His third ever edit on Wikipedia was a welcome page to a one-purpose account [9], which was used to revert changes on articles I happened to be editing at the time. What do you make of this? I've had this kind of stalking before, but not by an account specifically set up to target me. I want to assume good faith, but perhaps I am being paranoid?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, because you are the one follwing me around [10]. Why did you undo me on that page when you had never edited that page before? Hamadan is the alternative name of the city of Hamedan, that's the most common useage in English, the page had been rediercted to another page by someone else with no justification. Just because I am from Ahvaz, it doesn't mean that I have to share your opinions on issues, Ahvaz is diverse city of two million people. AhvaziKaka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AhvaziKaka (talk • contribs) 23:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Your apparent close interest in my edits made me naturally curious about your contributions - as you have obviously done with me, this being a case in point. I found that you had unilaterally re-directed the article and deleted the content of Hamadan (which was about the Yemeni tribe not the Iranian city - please read articles before you delete them [11]), without any discussion on the talk page. I reverted your re-direct and suggested that you discuss such a change on the talk page first. As I understand it, this is the usual procedure. I suggest you discuss it on that article's talk page instead of pursuing me here.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you admit that you were stalking me, yet you accuse me of the same thing. About the Hamadan article, someone had already removed the redirect with no discussion[12], I restored the redirect and created a new article Hamdan tribe[13], because nowadays in English, the term "Hamadan" is commonly used as a varity of the city of Hamedan (plz look it up on google [14] Britannica Encyclopedia [15] Columbia Encyclopedia [16] or elsewhere), not the Hamdan tribe. Also please keep in mind that I have no intrest in your edits, as an Iranian Arab from Ahvaz, my areas of intrest are Ahvaz, Iranian Arabs, and the wider Arab issues. AhvaziKaka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AhvaziKaka (talk • contribs).
I was looking at your contributions, because you appear to be more interested in confronting me than adding content to Wikipedia, notably your assumption of bad faith over my support for an Arab Wiki Project, which includes the tired and baseless accusation that I am a pan-Arabist [17]. You piqued my interest and your unilateral deletion of an article on the Hamadan tribe (written by one of those you have accused of being "involved in tribal edit-waring and pan-Arabist POV-pushing"[18] made me concerned. It is good, however, that since my last comment here, that you have now actually read the article and recreated the article on the Hamadan tribe. I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with the following guidelines: WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What "unilateral deletion"? The content didn't belong there in the first place, and I moved it under the correct title. If someone created an article about a tribe named "Landon tribe", on London, a good editor would correct it right away, and that's what I did. As for good faith, I have shown pletty of it, I would suggest you do the same and stop haressing me and implying that I am not an Arab [19] or any less Arab than you because I don't agree with your fringe views. AhvaziKaka
I don't see that anything I have said is harassment or that I have said you are not an Arab. But I'll leave that judgement to others.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If neither of you are willing to degenerate this discussion into rudeness or other serious rule breaking, then I'll be forced to sit back and not block anyone. So please, if you are going to set the example for other Wikipedian's by calmly discussing your differences on my talk page, just let me know, and I'll paste barnstars on both your talk pages. Rklawton 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was being rude. I do, however, dislike being portrayed as "tribal" or "pan-Arabist" when I support the creation of an Arab Wiki Project. And a cursory look at this user's contributions shows that the account appears to exist to confront me and revert my edits, rather than anything else. If I cannot raise my concerns with an admin in an open manner, then I guess I will have to put up and shut up, yes?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please! If you read my reply carefully, every word of it was a compliment to each of you. From what I've read, you both have a keen interest in sharing with the world information about a culture and region with which you are both familiar, and I appreciate your efforts. I encourage you to be honest with each other and explain clearly your views. Feel free to use my talk page if you wish. Based on what I see, I have every confidence that you will work out your differences in a useful manner. Indeed, I wish I could maintain my good humor as well as each of you have so far. That is why I suggested that if you both continue in this way, I will award you barnstars (Wikipedia's version of a friendly compliment). Rklawton 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, I apoligize if I was being rude, can you please look into the issue the Hamadan page? This term "Hamadan" is most commonly used in English as an alternative spelling of Hamedan the city, not the tribe (Hamadan tribe). You can check this by a simple search (plz see google [20] Britannica Encyclopedia [21] Columbia Encyclopedia [22]), . I am affraid someone will remove the redirect again, I appriciate it if you looked into this issue cloesly. AhvaziKaka

I shall, but it will need to wait until tomorrow. I have no authority in this matter, but can I ask both of you if you will accept my opinion when I do? I suggest this primarily as a means to quickly put this matter to rest. Any editor can serve as mediator, but only if all parties agree. Thoughts? Rklawton 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 ??

Obviously, u know nothing about the breeds history. Chessy999 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

You know that "Aryeitskiy Saldat" guy you blocked for a month for repeated 3RR violations on all those Nazi-related articles, and for block evasion?

His name is Russian for "Aryan Soldier"; as such, his block has been extended indefinitely. DS 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That kinda takes away some of the fun, doesn't it? Rklawton 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (from Bernard Okun) I feel that I have been unfairly blocked from Wikipedia, after I made a few constructive edits to Phil Rizzuto - and removed some unconstructive stuff. There is a birth certificate available which confirms his date of birth. When I was told of the 3-revert rule, I stopped further edits. Also, I am not a sockpuppet of anyone else (See my talk page). If you can't unblock me, please inform me of the process I must go through to be unblocked. All this is a bit of a shock. (Bernard Okun, August 28, 10:53 EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.161 (talk) 14:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Ortolan Bunting

Thanks for removing my discussion about the Ortolan Bunting, but it isn't for you to remove other people's discussion comments. And, since I added a link to the actual article that did not exist, your note "see above" is not applicable. WiccaWeb 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I checked. The link was above. I added it myself. Your notes on the talk page added nothing that wasn't already there. Rklawton 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on my "talk" page are mean spirited and arrogant. YOU don't get to edit OTHER PEOPLES comments, though you can add your own if you wish. It's NOT for YOU to edit OTHER PEOPLES discussion comments. Keep your fingers off my discussion comments. Your actions are VANDALISM. If I have to make a complaint, so be it. WiccaWeb 06:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. So you've finally noticed that you did goof up - and your natural incliniation is to resort to personal attacks. Niiiiice. Rklawton 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My comments where objective, your cutting remarks where unnecessary, aggressive, and combative. If your world is so wrapped up in nit-picking other peoples inconsequential Discussion comment, yours is truly a sad life. I know how to “undo”, too. Shall we take this “all the way”? I’m up for it. Or, you could just back off and consider there are more important things to “nit-pick” at Wikipedia. Your choice. WiccaWeb 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages aren't for incosequential discussions - they are for working on improving the associated article. If you want to do something inconsequential, go write a blog. You can use "uno" - I can use "block" for disruption - wanna bet on which one sticks? Rklawton 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Do you consider your views "sacred cows"? It seems so. If you choose to ABUSE your rights, I can make the appropriate complaints. WiccaWeb 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Give it your best shot! Rklawton 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist in acting like this is YOUR project, that YOU and YOU ALONE are the guide and decider of what is appropriate or not? Isn't that rather selfash and SILLY? WiccaWeb 15:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist on creating a new thread rather than build on an existing thread - and adding a link that has already been provided and commented on? Isn't that rather redundant and therefore pointless? If it doesn't contribute to the article, it doesn't belong on the article's talk page. Rklawton 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you just VANDALIZE my Talk page Rklawton? Yes you did! How dare you VANDALIZE my own comments on my own Talk page. This has gone too far. You're out of line, and this has to stop.
I have requested MEDIATION. Please do not UNDO my Ortolan Bunting discussion until such time that the MEDIATION has concluded. WiccaWeb 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

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/WiccaWeb.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:18, 30 August 2007 (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.
I would like to apologize for any misunderstandings we may have had. I appreciate your service to Wikipedia. WiccaWeb 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. And I should have been less of a dick. Rklawton 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Government of North Korea

Would "Juche Communist State" be acceptable? Flag of the United Kingdom Speedboy Salesman 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All countries are "States" - so that's a bit redundant. Do you mean to suggest that North Korea is not a dictatorship? Rklawton 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. But if we're you said that "communist/communism" is stated in the North Korean constitution, is dictatorship listed as well? What about "Juche Communism"? Because there are people out there who say that North Korea is not a dictatorship, wouldn't that be a point of view to the people who don't class it as a dictatorship? Flag of the United Kingdom Speedboy Salesman 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Some people" is a fair cry from reliable sources. Why are you so keen to not include "dictatorship" in the government type label? Rklawton 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using some people as a "source" I'm saying opinion on this is divided. The reason I'm keen not to have "Dictatorship" is because even Myanmar (Burma) doesn't have "dictatorship" as it's government type, and that's clearly a military dictatorship. Flag of the United Kingdom Speedboy Salesman 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I follow "the news" and consider myself to be to the left of "liberal", so perhaps I'm not objective. But I really don't think there is much debate at all as to if North Korea is a dictatorship. Civilian or military, the definition is clear by common standards, and North Korea qualifies. If Myanmar does not have this as part of it's Wiki definition, than that's an error. WiccaWeb 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

Hi. I don't know if you're an admin or not, but I see you've had prior troubles with User:Callelinea, so I thought I'd ask you for help in my current edit war with her. He/she keeps placing unsourced material in the Pedro Zamora article. If you look at the Edit Summaries in our last few edits, you'll see what it's about. I also began a discussion on that Talk Page to further elaborate my point of view, and invited Callelinea to join it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick lock

I just wanted to thank you for quickly replying to my page protection request for the Steve Fossett article. Those IP edits were very quickly getting out of hand, so you've saved everyone a lot of work now. Thanks again and see you around. Answerthis 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your work on the article. This is going to be a BIG story in about two and half hours, and I'm sure we'd all rather have the world see an un-vandalized article. Rklawton 19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I was divided whether the "Dead M F" section would be of value in talk:Steve Fossett. Thanks for eliminating any misgivings I may have had! —EncMstr 20:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobes

The previous discussion on Category:Homophobia did result in a deletion. As an administrator, it was not really my decision to delete that category. Rather it was my opinion that there was consensus in the discussion for deletion. As I recall there was clear consensus for deletion. Apparently Category:Homophobes has now survived two CfDs. For many editors there is a difference between the two. Thanks for the notice, but I see no reason for me to participate in the discussion. I will add that category discussion pages probably do not get much of a following. Vegaswikian 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Troll alert

Norm watches too much Thomas the Tank Engine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --Calton | Talk 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your warning.

I removed a template, yes. It said that if you objected to the article being deleted for any reason, to simply remove the template. Why would you threaten to block me for that? There are other templates you can use that direct people to a talk page that are not to be removed. I also note the last line of the template I removed states that if removed, that template should not be put back up.

I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just seeing that every few days, there are some articles up for deletion that deserve at least some consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing templates without explaining your actions on the article's talk page is disruptive. Rklawton 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Stephenson House

Can't remember if I ever said so or not but you took some mighty fine photos of the Maid Rite shop in Springfield. I wonder, since you seem to be from that region, do you have anything of the Benjamin Stephenson House in Edwardsville. There isn't an article yet but the family is pretty important to northern Illinois history, at least the son, anyway. (Cough, cough-archive-cough.) IvoShandor 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can get to this next week. Rklawton 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. I've added one of the images to the List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois article. Rklawton 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Great images Robert. Did you get any others, by chance, they would be useful in filling out the article, which is a work in progress. See User:IvoShandor/Benjamin Stephenson House. IvoShandor 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The house wasn't open to the public the day I visited. I'd be happy to go back some time. However, I'd like to know if there are any specific features you would like photographed before I do. Rklawton 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a photo of the kitchen. Rklawton 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. I placed it in the article. You went back already? You must be in Edwardsville a lot, regardless, thanks a lot, Edwardsville is quite far from DeKalb County, over 4 hours by car, so the likelihood that I will visit there any time soon is slim. I will be doing some touring of Yorkville, Illinois, and Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area after work today in my neck of the woods though. :) Thanks again for the photos, the article is really starting to look nice. I made a comment about the slavery connection. Perhaps the current source is glossing over this. IvoShandor 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey, you archived! Congratulations on getting the Miszabot. :-) R. Baley 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose. It was a hollow victory. I found that the number of messages I received was inversely proportional to the size of the talk page. Rklawton 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
See, your point, I suppose as an admin a lot of your messages are less than pleasant. Well, don't know if this helps any, but I like the photos you've added. In particular, the butterfly ones are really interesting. If I still dabbled in photography, it's the kind of thing I would like to do. Take care, R. Baley 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Butterflies are OK, but they can be vicious sometimes. Rklawton 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:KiddBeatz

A tag has been placed on User:KiddBeatz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. B1atv 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I don't know how this one ended up here! B1atv 22:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigshow Radio

Hi,

I followed your instructions up until the edit part... I think I created a new wiki for Bigshow with corrections by mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bigshow_radio_la&action=submit this is it. I made it very encyclopediaesq. Does this meet Wikipedias guidelines? (Hernanzepol 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

How is this Internet radio station notable? Does it have any listeners? Has it been written up in the media at all? Rklawton 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft PowerPoint Templates

Hi, I wanted to create a resource of PowerPoint templates, and add detailed info on how to create them, their design aesthetics, etc. So I put in a few lines to get started, and then you deleted that saying it is redundant? Can you help me with this? How can I create any content when you delete stuff that I would painstakingly put together?

Thanks -- have a great day.

Geeteshbajaj 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Kentucky

Somehow its just too stereotypical that this is from a municipality in Kentucky. Its almost like a bad joke.

While I'm here, I suggest considering archiving your page - it is awfully long, and actually lagged on loading for me. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent the city's admin a note. The response (if I get one) may also be worth posting. I plan on archiving. It's just a matter of deciding which type. Early on I was archiving by topic, but that proved too time consuming. Rklawton 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let me know if you get a response, please - that should be worth seeing. I switched to auto-archive by bot some time ago, and have really appreciated the convenience. The parameters are easy to set, and its a no-hassle solution. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing yet? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The e-mail bounced. I did have a bit of luck with another vandal. I blocked his IP for a few months, and when I got abusive e-mails, I had his e-mail account cancelled, too. Rklawton 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arendedwinter

Thanks
Thanks for the little cleanup on my talk page. :) Didn't know we're allowed to remove pointless messages such as those. Arendedwinter 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's your talk page, and you can manage it pretty much any way you like. While other users are generally discouraged from removing user talk page content from other's pages, experienced editors will sometimes will if they perceive it is a favor. Rklawton 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Archifile

Please stop undoing Archifile's edits on his talk page. It's his talk page, and short of re-wording your edits, he's free to do with it what he wants. Your history of edits on Archifile's talk page bear a strong resemblance to harassment, and I won't allow that to continue. Rklawton 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm just like this one? [23] or this [24] what about this one? [25] ExtraDry 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a separate matter. You have been warned, and that's the matter I'm addressing here. Rklawton 12:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dune edits

Thank you for reverting my attempted edits. I was trying to fix the clumped edit links, and something wasn't working properly -- Rpyle731 (logged out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.145.66 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It looked like a good faith effort to me. I'll be interested in seeing the results once you sort it out. Also, feel free to copy the article over to the sandbox and test out your edits there if you like. Rklawton 00:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanford and Son

Just add a template to the top that it needs references because i can't find it and that is a lot of info that you deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpoo (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad then Shawnpoo 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

Hi Robert, sorry so impersonal, in a rush, got to go. :)

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF VIOLATION

Hi. I thought you'd like me to notify you that you've violated WP:AGF by immediately assuming that I was out to disrupt Wikipedia (which is actually the opposite of what everyone else seems to think). That and I thought it'd be interesting to see how you like it when someone immediately tags you with some sort of "you broke the rules!" notification. Try to be a little more WP:CIVIL next time. --Cheeser1 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.

I've full-protected both his user and talk pages, as the racist ramblings keep being re-added. Feel free to unprotect if you think I'm being too harsh... I've deleted the offending material, but left the rest of the talk in place. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, too. Rklawton 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report

Hey hey, buzzing through, more deliveries to make, see ya around for surely. :)

The WikiProject Illinois Newsletter (Beta)
"Post Census Report"
Vol. I, No. 1, Issue 1, October 2007
If you would like to delete this message, the original is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Newsletter/Post Census Report
Census results

On October 4, 2007 WikiProject Illinois embarked on a membership census. The census was the project's first since its establishment on September 24, 2005. Due to the nature of the wiki, and the two years that had passed, it seemed likely that many of the project's older members were no longer active. The project page had grown stagnant and the census provided an opportunity to see who was still around, slaving away in their own corner of the encylopedia, unknown to the rest of the Illinois editing world. Well, now, the tabulation is complete, and after a notice at the Community Portal, we have gained a couple new members amongst the cluster of project veterans who returned to sign up.

Of the 55 members listed on the project membership list on October 4, 26 editors returned to the list to "resign up," thus, confirming their current activity within project areas. If you received this message, you were one of those editors. The List of Participants has now been updated to reflect the results of this membership survey, with members who failed to respond highlighted as "inactive." Now, as a group of editors, we have a core list of individuals, that will hopefully grow in size as the project strives to become a better organized central collaboration space for editors working on Illinois related topics.

What's next?

The big question, where does the project go from here? Well there are a few proposals being floated at this project page. Little discussion has occurred thus far, and participation would be key to all of them. Some ideas include:

  • An A-class review system, under the WP:ILLINOIS banner, to serve the Illinois and Chicago WikiProjects.
  • A project newsletter, of which this is a beta version.
  • Project restructuring, to include regional and specific discipline task forces.
  • A monthly project collaboration to grow out of our currently idle collaboration division.
From the Editors
  • Welcome new members: Laleena, Omnedon and Rickvaughn
  • Interested in helping building and developing a project newsletter? See, start and join in on the proposal discussion.
  • The table is back up at the List of Participants and it has several blanks you can fill in if you have not done so already. They are: where you are originally from, where you live, the project areas you work in, your join date, and now, your status (which has been filled in for you).
News & Notes
  • Don't forget to add the project page to your watchlist so you can monitor the project talk page for relevant discussion.
  • As a note: WP:ILLINOIS is the project page shortcut and WT:ILLINOIS is the project talk page shortcut.
  • Kranar drogin essentially single-handedly cleared out the massive backlog in Category:Unassessed WikiProject Illinois articles, feel free to sprinkle his page with barnstars and thank yous, he deserves it. Everyone can help keep it cleared out by checking it for unassessed articles. For more information see the Assessment division of the project, though it isn't as project specific as it should be, it has enough info to give assessors an idea of what to do. Be aware that classes A, GA and FA can only be imposed by outside review processes.
  • The AlexNewArtBot dumps new Illinois related articles on this page periodically. You can help monitor new material by watchlisting the page, and combing new Illinois articles for clean up, referencing and other needed editing work.
Contributors to this Issue

IvoShandor 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Companies

I removed content from Merck & Co. that specifically referred to Merck KGaA which is a completely different company. I made that clear in my edit summary. Why did you restore this content that doesn't belong in that article? Also, the IP that you left a conflict of interest warning message for belongs to Johnson & Johnson, which is also a different company than Merck & Co.. How can there be a conflict of interest? Please undo your incorrect revert at Merck & Co. and remove your mistaken warning message from User talk:148.177.1.211‎. Thank you. 148.177.1.211 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you were already fixing Merck & Co.. Thanks. 148.177.1.211 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Michael P. Murphy

Thanks, I was afraid someone would get to it before me :). That's a nice image you found of him, thanks for adding that. Although it looks like the image was uploaded on top of one for a different Michael Murphy (check out the image history). jwillbur 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yoink! Thanks for the heads up. I've restored the original image, re-uploaded Michael's image, and gave it a more useful file name. Cheers - Rklawton 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

earring

ya wanna give me a reason why you reverted my comments on earring discussion?Д narchistPig 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya wanna give me a reason why you're making comments on an article's talk page that are't geared toward helping to improve the article? Rklawton 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah. i was helping whoever the hell that was that needed information on piercing that wasnt in the article.Д narchistPig 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And that's why I deleted it. An article's talk page should be used for developing the article. Now, as for you user name, I recommend you find a new one. See WP:USERNAME for more information about appropriate names. Rklawton 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1.since that user had no user page and is an anonymous user and therefore has no user page on which to tell her my views i had to do it there.

2.i checked the user name rules thing and dont any cause for offence nor any cause for it being any of your goddamned business.Д narchistPig 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be under the section regarding defaming a group (whether that's anarchists or pigs is up for graps). Note also our policies on WP:CIVIL. And as this is an all volunteer project, it is my business. Rklawton 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
it would not be offensive to anarcists beacause most don't care what other people think of us. an anarchist to tell the truth would not support a conformist website like wiki, but i guess im an exception.Д narcistPig 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested you change your user name and placed the appropriate instructions on your user page. I've also put the matter up for other editors to review. Rklawton 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
but failed to give a good reason not to express who one is. (by the way i suggest you take a look at who you are. you're a 40-50 year old dude (judging from the picture) arguing with a 15 year old stoner on the internet about jamming a pin thru his ear and being and anarcist.Д narcistPig 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No doubt your mother is very proud of you. Rklawton 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
no doubt yours is deadД narcistPig 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
i think its a little sad u had to block me to win an argument.(and i re-iterate: you must live with your mom) peace outД narcistPig 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Manson page vandalism

At the discussion page of Charles Manson, I've just left a note headed "Vandalism." I'm bringing it to the attention of you and one or two other editors who have countered vandalism of the article.JohnBonaccorsi 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin user:viridae is (in my opinion) abusing the tools

Would you take a look at my userpage for the dispute in question? It has all arisen from the pettifoggery of an unnamed user, which resulted in a pointless AnI. I believee you posted in that thread. Viridae has reverted back to changes he made to my userpage, and then protected it to keep me from putting his deletion back in. I explained my reasoning on his userpage, but then he reverted and protected regardless.K. Scott Bailey 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly the full story. See: [26]. ViridaeTalk 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You point to pettifoggery to support your own pettifoggery. Ironic, much? K. Scott Bailey 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I read the whole ANI thread. It seems that one editor thinks bailey should be nicer to vandals, and everyone else thinks bailey is doing a fine job. I agree with everyone else. Now, without reading bailey's user page (which I haven't), I can say that a user's talk page should be left to that user. Feel free to leave messages, but don't feel free to force those messages to remain. And it isn't appropriate to protect a talk page unless the user has already been blocked from editing. It's disruptive. Rklawton 11:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahm... I think you might have missed the point entirely. The top thread was resolved, the bottom thread (aslo archived) was what you needed to see. Basically Kscottbailey insulted the one editor on his talk page - I removed the insult as a personal attack - he added it again, i removed it and protected the page. He then added it to his talk page instead, so I removed that and told him in no uncertain terms that if he continued to be disruptive and add insults to his his talk page or his userpage (or anywhere else for that matter) then he would be blocked. His talk page was never protected, messages were never forced to remain, it was simply about him inflaming the (supposedly resolved) situation by attacking the other editor which was very disruptive. ViridaeTalk 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Viridae made a mistake above, the first time he said "talk page" he actually meant "userpage". Kscottbailey insulted me on his userpage, and he claims that's OK because he just said "unnamed", though a quick look at his contributions or talk page would have made it clear who he was referring to. So it was his userpage that was protected, not his talk page. -- HiEv 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest thanking bailey for his contributions and finding something useful to do with your time. Rklawton 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Rklawton. If you look at what I wrote on MY talk page, it was a simple explanation of the Barnstar I received as a result of not giving in to HIEV. I did not mention him by name, and the only people who would have even known who I was referring to would be the several editors that happened upon said pettifoggery at the AnI. I was not out of line, I just happened to cross an admin who was willing to use the tools to enforce his views on my talk page. Thanks again for taking a look, as I have always appreciated your take on things. What a wasted day yesterday on WP was for me! K. Scott Bailey 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, may favorite edit summary for vandals who insert stuff such as "[name] is a [insult]" is No original research. As such, it assumes good faith and and explains the policy problem with the edit. However, usually I just go with "rvv" because it's shorter. Of course, refering to someone's edits as "vandalism" is both a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (and often WP:BITE) … Rklawton 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Crossfit Article

Can we de-escalate the edit war, please. I am genuinely puzzled because I believe I have acted in good faith. From my perspective: - my text is fully supported by the references and is encylopedic - nonetheless, my version has been repeatedly deleted with unspecified reasons and with no discussion on the talk page - a much older and less complete version has been substituted - I have now been warned that I am engaged in an edit war and bad things may happen soon!

Let's leave aside recriminations and past history, and move forward from here, assuming good faith . A useful way to proceed might be: -maintaining the current text for the moment on the article page -on the discussion page, working with the current text by deleting or modifying any text that falls short of Wikipedia standards and arriving at a consensus

Thanks Qwertman 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would check the article's talk page, you will see that the conversation has proceeded. Rklawton 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Dula, an Article I Created

I would appreciate your thoughts on the article I just created on Tom Dula, the real man behind the popular folk song "Tom Dooley." It's not long (only a bit over 5000 characters, I think), so it shouldn't take too long. I know you're busy, so if you can't get to it, I understand. Talk to you later! K. Scott Bailey 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I tossed in a bit of formatting and added his name to the List of people who died by hanging. Rklawton 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir! If you can think of other ways to "un-orphan" it, I would appreciate that as well. I wiki-linked it in the Kingston Trio's article and, of course, the "Tom Dooley" article as well. Thanks again for your help! K. Scott Bailey 03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For your information

A tag has been placed on Image:Croydon facelift.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Look in that girl's face. I really do not think she accepted to be photographed or pictured resp. --Revolus 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, 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. --Revolus 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I deleted it. Rklawton 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting question for you.

I want to make my "Pages I watch" list on my userpage into a collapsible secion. Do you know how I do that? I've looked and experimented, and can not seem to figure it out. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue, sorry. Rklawton 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I swiped some code from your userpage, and accomplished nearly the same thing simply by "column-izing" my lists. My userpage is much shorter now. Thanks for the inadvertent help! :) K. Scott Bailey 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Rklawton 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Small world!

One of the IPs that vandalised your page on Commons just turned up on en books (with this) and is blocked by you here. I'm inclined to think this is not a school given this? Any thoughts & no urgency at all, cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a general thought that it might be neat if we could see edit histories across projects for IP addresses. It would provide us with more context when evaluating current problems. Rklawton 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I generally check Luxo's tool out for an ip (or user - good for cross wiki spammers!) when I have time, hence the thought that it is not a school that we are dealing with, regards --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that tool. Can you point me to it? Thanks! Rklawton 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies - it is in the link above (for the ip) and what made me suspicious about that IP. This is the general one. It does not always work and isn't that fast but it is good for reviewing when there's time (& getting the domain is a bonus!) , regards --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tombstone, Arizona

Hey Robert, wondering, could I get a little help on the article above, User:Nyttend is up at the edge of 3RR changing units to list metric first in a U.S. article, flatly in the face of WP:UNITS. Perhaps you could help explain this to this user. IvoShandor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, maybe he/she read my note on the talk page, it makes great sense. :) IvoShandor 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is the thread now? It should either be on the project's page or the bot's page. I'm assuming the project complies with UNITS, so perhaps this is just a matter of fixing the bot. UNITS is pretty clear, though I'd be in favor of changing it formally. English measures suck; even the English don't use them. Rklawton 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Alas, it is what the U.S. recognizes and uses, the talk page of Tombstone, but a bot operator is already on the task. I just wanted the reverting to stop, it did. IvoShandor 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick question...

Can an article about an album (i.e., Make me rich) be tagged db-band? It does not quite seem to fit, but it's the closest I can find. This article is rubbish. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So... I am guessing that the answer was, in one form or another, yes. Anyway, the article is gone. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Save conflicted... Yes, I've deleted/reverted all his stuff on conflict of interest/self-promotion/repost grounds. The guy's got a history and at least two accounts. Good catch. Rklawton 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what it was that caught my eye when it came up on recent changes. Perhaps his name was mentioned in the edit summary, and it matched the username, which is always a red flag. At any rate, I'm glad I saw it, and glad it is gone. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Penn State

You caught it a little before me--I've commented at AN/I and am speaking to the appropriate PR people there tomorrrow--I've done this before, with advice and instruction from Durova, using her WP:BFAQ. DGG (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, I've made requests on both the admin page discussion and in the Prasenjit Mitra discussion for *constructive* suggestions on how to help my students make more productive contributions. I thought I'd repeat it here in case you weren't watching. I'm sorry if my students' first drafts surprised you and were misinterpreted, or if my assignment was in your opinion suboptimal, but please try to keep things respectful and helpful.Cmhoadley 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you didn't assign work for your students that wasn't blazingly self-promotional. How's that? Rklawton 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on the conduct of admin User:Mikkalai

A brief summary:

This user came to my attention when I was doing some RfA reviews and votes. He was blanketing every RfA with an oppose vote and some version of a "we don't need a professional police force" commentary. At first, this simply struck me as misguided, and a bit disrespectful (per WP:AGF), especially coming from an administrator. Upon reviewing his contribs further, I realized that this was a more blatant violation of both WP:AGF and WP:POINT, as he was simply taking out his frustrations about a 48hr block he received from another admin for edit warring on the RfA candidates up for consideration. I approached this editor, both in the main RfA space, as well as on his talk page. Several other editors did so as well. He has continued his policy violations by WP:NPA|attacking]] us as "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." He has also deleted multiple good-faith contribs from his talk page, simply because he didn't like what we had to say. While I know that at least THAT part is within his rights, I don't know if I've ever seen an admin demonstrate less good will and good faith in my previous months on the project. I have included what I feel are the most pertinent links. What I'd like to see is an "outside review" of sorts, of how this admin has conducted himself, both in the initial RfA canvassed opposes, and the subsequent discussions. Thanks in advance for any time you can put into this. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

(The above are various diffs that demonstrate his extreme incivility in both posted content and edit summaries.)

[31] (This is the 48hr block that apparently started his inappropriate RfA campaign against an admin "professional police force.")

[32] (I placed a discussion he deleted from his talk page here for preservation.)

[33] (His accusations of bullying are all the way at the bottom of this page.)

Other than similar RfA votes and comments, is there a pattern to his votes? For example, is he opposing only RfA nominations which his detractors have supported? You may have a case even without this information, but a bit more research might make this airtight. Suggestions:
  1. See if you can find an additional pattern
  2. Create a complete list of RfA diffs from this admin over the last week (both yes, no, and neutrals)
  3. Summarize your concerns (basically around WP:POINT).
  4. Post this on AN/I.
Remember, RfA voting is an editing issue, so leave the bureaucrats out of it for now. Rklawton 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD? I'm confused. His canvassing with opposes was at RfA, and was simply blanketing 10+ RfAs with the same basic message about WP not needing a "professional police force." His utter incivility came afterwards, when multiple editors approached him with concerns regarding these RfA votes. K. Scott Bailey 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't enjoy such confrontations, but this seems to be a blatantly abusive admin, especially in edit summaries accusing people who disagree with him of being "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." I guess my basic question was, given the above evidence, is it worth pursuing? K. Scott Bailey 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a pattern where he is basically voting no for every RfA his detractors favor, then yes, I would think it's worth posting on AN/I. Rklawton 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I don't think I'm making clear: he's voting "oppose" on EVERY RfA, in my opinion simply because he's angry about being blocked 48 for edit-warring. That's how he has attracted "detractors." He simply opposes every RfA he votes on, and leaves a cursory message about "professional police" or some variant thereof. His detractors have come as a result of his unprofessional behavior, first on RfA in blanketing oppose votes on every RfA, then on his talk page for deleting good-faith questions, as well as leaving personal attacks about "trolling" and "bullying" in the edit summaries. K. Scott Bailey 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. If you like, then just bring it up as a WP:POINT issue on AN/I. Keep it short and simple, provide the full list of vote diffs (so others can quickly grasp the scale), and focus only on the votes. You may want to suggest that these votes be removed and that the admin be warned (by someone new). Rklawton 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can put together. I'm not very good at formatting diffs and the like, but I think I may do this. He's being VERY pointy, and uncivil as well. K. Scott Bailey 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois

Hey guy, I saw that you helped out originally with List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois. I just wanted to let you know that I have converted it into a table, and Ivo and myself are going to start working on it towards FL. So any assistance with the page or the other articles would be great. Or heck, just even morale support would be great!--Kranar drogin 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great! I'll be in Springfield in a few weeks, so if you've got maybe one place that needs a photograph, I might give it a shot. Keep the weather in mind, though. Rklawton 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Boy, one place huh. I will have to think about that one.--Kranar drogin 04:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my one place would have to be the Illinois Executive Mansion. I am going to make a quick map for you, well, trying to anyways. I saw someone do this, so give me a few here.--Kranar drogin 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was much more than a few! Here is the map I created Here. I know you said one, but you never know if you would have time for the others!--Kranar drogin 10:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got Friday morning available. The executive mansion won't be open then, and I suspect an interior shot would be most useful for the article. Any ideas for a Friday morning shoot? Rklawton 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would just say get what you can get that is close to where you are. If it happens to be a place side by side...well =). Just take the map, all the addresses are on it, so its your choice.--Kranar drogin 21:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy, did you have any luck on your adventures in Springfield?--Kranar drogin 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just returned. I was able to shoot a few locations as the weather was crisp and the trees colorful. The images will take another hour to download and a few more to process. Look for changes to my gallery page tomorrow. Rklawton 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, FWIW

FYI (since you're a significant contributor to the article), I've asked members of WikiProject Law to comment following [34]. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The early news reports claim no warrant. The later reports make no such claim. That's also significant. Rklawton 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey

Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Abraham Lincoln?

Both the talk page and the article are being monopolized by pettifoggery from User:Gwen_Gale. She is opposing uncontroversial portions of the article based on minutae, and refusing to recognize any sources provided as reliable. I've disengaged from her now. I'd appreciate another set of eyes on the article, and this potentially problematic user. (As background info, you should know that she has claimed she could reliably source that Lincoln was "genocidal", so she's got some "different" ideas on Lincoln.) K. Scott Bailey 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

She's at it again. She's now accusing me of the following:
...you are edit warring without end and continue to engage in low level personal attacks. Please stop edit warring. Please stop engaging in personal attacks. Please stop mis-applying Wikipedia policy. Please stop using belligerent and misleading edit summaries and please stop forum shopping. per User:Gwen_Gale at the talk page for Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not sure she understands that accusing people of violating various and sundry wikipolicies without merit is ITSELF a violation of wikipolicy. Could you look into this further, when you get the chance? Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dawgs05190

Re: Need your help
If you think it's appropriate, please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. It's faster, probably, to report this sort of abuse through WP:AIV. Rklawton 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is the first time I asked an admin help for blocking. I saw you blocked User talk:Ipod32196 and asked. Because I thought User:Dawgs05190's edits were so terrible. I'll be more patient with users like him/her. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind helping. However, if I'd stepped out for the day, your request would have received a delayed response, and that would have been unfortunate. That's why I recommended WP:AIV. Please do not be more patient with these sorts of vandals. They should be blocked quickly and without drama. Rklawton 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Stupid of me! I was a little bit sleepy and misread the word 'through' as 'though'. Ha ha ha. Well thanks and good night. (It's early in the morning where I am) Oda Mari (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
よい夢 Rklawton 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it was a bad dream. (about my hasty and silly English reading and then my upsetting and embarrassment, of course) Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merck vandal

Just wondering if you think it might be useful to put a range block on the IPs used by the person who keeps vandalizing the Merck article. Do you think the collateral damage on blocking 201.141.128/17 would be minimal? --Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The collateral damage would cover just over 65,000 IP addresses. They're Mexican, so it might not have much of an impact on English Wikipedia users, but I'd feel more comfortable if we had a way of checking out the activity of these 65,000 addresses first. I don't mind 6 month blocks on the IPs he uses because I can check them for activity first. Interestingly enough, I know who is responsible for these edits. You might try contacting his internet service provider about this. How's your Spanish? Rklawton 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's a lot of addresses, but as far as I can tell there have been no other edits from any IP used by the vandal. Your suggestion of contacting the ISP is probably a much better way to go, though. I know very little Spanish, so I would have to enlist the help of someone else. Can you elaborate on who is responsible for these edits? --Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll forward that on to whoever would coordinate with the ISP. The ISP, however, will probably only need IP addresses and GMT edit times. From this they can trace the account holder themselves. I doubt they would want to take action on my word alone. Rklawton 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input. I'll let you know if I decide to take any action (not sure it's worth the effort for a generally low level of vandalism). --Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NufcCiaran

Hi! It's me again. I've been sighing since then. I'm not in hurry. so I ask you the block again. To tell the truth, it's easier. I'm not sure if I could post the report appropriately. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my conduct at the talk page of Abraham Lincoln?

I am reposting this from the note I left at Tim Vickers talk page, as I just noticed he won't be around until Wednesday.

I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by User:Gwen_Gale. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that once again your use of a certain word has raised hackles and distracted an editor from your most relevant points. I hope you keep this in mind. Being right and being effective are not the same thing.
Other than that, Gwen obviously stands alone. Learn to trust your judgment – and Wikipedia's other editors. This trust would manifest itself by clearly and succinctly outlining your arguments and then leaving it to other editors (not the one in question) to agree. They will. By responding to every comment, you increase the length of the thread and decrease the probability that an experienced editor will want to join in.
Why? Reading long threads requires a significant investment in time and energy, and the surety of a return comment from you guarantees an additional drain. If you keep your arguments short and to the point, more people will have a chance to join in and your opponent will find him or herself overwhelmed. Unless you're wrong, of course. In that case, they probably won't – but then – you won't have wasted much of your time on the matter. It's a win for you either way. Rklawton 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So, aside from my use of the word pettifoggery (which I will remove from my wikivocabulary, per your advice here) do you see any merit in her various and sundry claims of policy violations on my part? To be honest, dealing with her (as well as the problem at RfA) has sapped some of my passion for the project, and I've been considering taking some time off from WP. This might be the best thing for all involved. I'd be letting other editors deal with her, and I could come back renewed.
As a side question, I have created an above-board second-account, User:MrWhich. What procedures do I need to go through in order to make certain that I don't break any policies by having that account? I was considering going dormant on this account (which has my real name), and letting that one gradually become my main one. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks again for all your help. K. Scott Bailey 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no merit to her claims. Many editors have taken a vacation; I recommend the beach. There are several valid approaches to creating a new account. If you wish to switch ID's, simply abandon your old account and start a new one. You need not make a connection between them, and so long as you've given up the one entirely (an indef block is not a bad way to go, either). You always have the right to vanish. Rklawton 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't necessarily wanting to completely abandon this account. Isn't it fairly common for one person to maintain two above-board accounts, as long as they're not vote-stacking at AfDs and stuff like that? Also, is it necessary to post the userbox identifying Mr Which with the KSB account? Sorry for all the questions. I guess even after 8-9 months, I'm still a bit of a nooby. K. Scott Bailey 06:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SOCK for details. But yes, I would cross-link both accounts if you wish to take that approach. Rklawton 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind talking to User:Gwen_Gale about both her accusations against good faith in calling my removal of external links at Abraham Lincoln per WP:EL "edit warring", as well as her continual insistence on reinserting them after several editors have removed them based on the same reasoning. I've asked her to stop accusing me of "edit warring" in her summaries, but she refuses to do so. I will remove them one last time, but I need someone other than myself to contact her regarding both her accusations and her reinsertion of what basically amounts to a link farm. K. Scott Bailey 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a short note on her talk page. I'll follow up in a few days. Rklawton 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. K. Scott Bailey 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your getting to it so quickly. One question I had was whether or not it will always take such an in-depth, source-by-source review to remove external links per WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. K. Scott Bailey 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AL ELs

So far I agree with your takes on each one you've looked at, thanks for doing this. Gwen Gale 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been too busy to go over the whole list, so keep the ball rolling if you like. Rklawton 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with GG's opinion on your views thus far. I still think that the "Open Directory" links at the top serve much the same purpose as some of the links in the list, but if it takes a link-by-link look to pare down the current linkfarm, I'm all for it. K. Scott Bailey 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger 2004-01-30.jpg

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Bibliography

This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president; The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely, Vanais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanais (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please bring this up on the article's talk page so all can participate. Rklawton (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Birding image deleted from Orchid, Florida and Orchid Island, Florida

See User:EvanS/Photos, who uploaded the image. Its caption is Birding in Indian River County. Located in the Indian River off the northwest coast of Orchid Island is the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. While access is limited, birders do watch from nearby either on the water or on Orchid Island. EvanS put the image in the Town of Orchid article and I put it in the Orchid Island article when I created. it clariosophic (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)corrected typo clariosophic (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The image shows us nothing of Orchid, Florida, nor does it show us birding. The image depicts two people with binoculars. It is a singularly uninteresting photo that certainly does not belong in a city article. Sorry. Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Treadwheel

I've responded to your question on the talk page, hope it is of use to you. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin armours

I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • do you have a photo of baidana? (it's a mail from quite big flat rings, weared over a mail from small rings) unfortunately the photo from ru:байдана is gonna be deleted :-(
  • do you have photos of mirror armour and plated mail ?
I'll have to check. It'll be a day or two before I can get to it. On what grounds will the original image be deleted? Rklawton (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
as FU violation, as a free photo could be made (it's gonna be deleted by the end of this week) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.164 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
the image which is gonna be deleted http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baydana_of_Boris_Godunov.jpg
another picture http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baidan_Rings_%28close-view%29.jpg that could be deleted in future too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.164 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • did you find anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.251.30 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look yet. Rklawton (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK! I'll wait :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.21 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • how about photos now? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.55.219 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for looking after my page during my absenceBoatman666 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Rklawton (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I would have expected more from an admin. How you could possibly call that link a personal website or a blog is beyond me. With all due respect, I think you should retract your assertion. Either way, I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um - because it's his personal website. Check out his bio. Check out the site. It's a personal website. This article calls for peer-review material. Rklawton 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Rockwell is a public figure and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, lewrockwell.com is a high traffic economics and libertarian web site with its own columnists and lots of features and archives (along with a separate blog feature which isn't an open blog). As for peer review, much of the material on the site is peer reviewed but that's irrelevent, WP policy has little to say about peer review and nothing to say about the need for peer reviewed external links for Abraham Lincoln. Lastly, the disputed link points to material by published authors and academics. As I said on the talk page I'll go with consensus which has its sway, after all, but please don't think for a moment it has anything to do with the article being NPOV (it is not) or in comformance with Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your time and I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Dear Rklawton, I think you may have confused incidents when changing this sentence: "This, and other reports of members of the US military's Criminal Investigation Command working with, or posing as, members of Canadian law enforcement has raised questions about Canadian sovereignty" The reference supporting the statement [35] is not about the incident in BC, and I think it supports correctly the assertion made. Pete.Hurd 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This belongs on the article's talk page. Rklawton 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, more there, but an FYI here. Pete.Hurd 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links I added?

Rklawton, I appreciate you showing me the Wiki policy on external links, but wouldn't you agree that some some sites (such as gruntsmilitary.com) offer high-quality image scans of these medals which people might actually be searching for? And, if they are searching for nicer images, they honestly won't find much on Wiki's current collection. Plus, I can't exactly grab the images from gruntsmilitary.com because most aren't in the public domain (and thus we can't paste them onto their wiki pages). Don't you think that this adds content and is worthy of an external link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militarybuff (talk • contribs)

No. It's spam. Rklawton 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a bit more of a fine line here between 'spam' and providing a link to a page with a lot of good information, which also offers links to buy the medals in question. To my mind, the gruntsmilitary.com site seems to offer a great resource of information with a very unobtrusive commercial side to it (in fact, it took me a little while on the site to work out what the concern was with it). PalawanOz 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We've already got good images, so we don't need to appear as a link farm for a commercial website. If we need better images, then the article's talk pages should be tagged with a photo request. Oddly enough, they aren't. So in short, the spam links are fulfilling a "need" that doesn't exist. Rklawton 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Civility

Civility is great. I'm glad you added the war correspondent, but a month of making the request is an awful long time for something that is properly and obviously sourced. Matt Sanchez 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. So you're giving me heat for doing something you've wanted done? Rklawton 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Write

No, I'm not giving you heat. I'm actually pointing out that it's great you were able to effectuate a change that was dragging along.

I need for people to point out what the "personal attacks" are, because there's obviously a communications' issue.

I've revised the Adult Entertainment category. How do I get editors to vote on this proposal? What is the usual process for making this change?

The revision is on the site, how do I proceed?Matt Sanchez 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You could start by providing a link. There is no Category:Adult Entertainment Rklawton 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


So, we could re-write:

I got the links to the article and rewrote several parts. Much better re-write. Please comment and see if we can get editors to approve it.


In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.


During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild[24], Jawbreaker[25] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [26]

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fountain Square, Cincinnati

Why did you sent me that message I didn't readd any corporate logo it was already there,I just moved it. Anyway its not a coporate logo its a free non-profit organization and its supposed to be an article about the square so shouldn't we have their logo on the page? Lastly other pages have logos for their organization,and or landmark why should fountain square be any different? As I said before I'm confused. Meckstroth.jm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meckstroth.jm (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits show you re-adding the logos - logos that are not part of the non-profit organization to which you refer. Do not re-add these logos to the article. Rklawton 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-write for Adult Career 2.0

So, we could re-write:


In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.


During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild[1], Jawbreaker[2] and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi. [3]

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Yes, please put these types of messages on the aritcle's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln/Lindley

Do you mean the Lindley info should just be not included? I have no view, except that Lindley is certainly not notable enough for his own article independently of Lincoln, his article was all about Lincoln. But we could just make Lindley a redirect, though thhen maybe he should get a one-sentence mention in the rare event people come from there.Merkinsmum 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial compared to the main article, and it's already included in the burial article. I agree that the biography isn't sufficiently notable. I think it should be redirected to the burial article. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::Aah I just spotted the burial article, didn't see it before you mentioned it. Ok I will redirect Lindley to there but without altering the info there.Merkinsmum 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My bad. I should have provided a link. Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just into redirects at the moment- working through clicking 'randam article' and redirecting non-notable ones. But if you asked on the Lincoln page or asked someone who works on the buurial page, I'm sure they'd sort it.:)Merkinsmum 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy editing. Rklawton (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star recipients notability

I note that you responded on Talk:Thomas T Walker about his notability as a Silver Star recipient. From time to time, there have been afd discussion on military personnel based on either rank/honors (BGen/NC). Some arguments centered on how many people there would be that would meet the criteria — I don't think numbers mean anything. At this point, I'm not inclined to support blanket notability on the basis of a Silver Star award. See Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. Checking just the "A"s — all have notability apart from the Silver Star. In the case of Bruce Godfrey Brackett, his additioanal notability comes from having a USN ship named in his honor. In the case of Thomas T Walker, there are a number of issues, in addition to notability of a Silver Star recipient — WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT. I'm interested in your further thoughts. — ERcheck (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given it much thought. I'll sleep on it, though. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We have to balance the fact that tens of thousands of these awards have been made against the fact that every new Silver Star recipient will receive enough press to satisify WP:V and WP:RS. Rklawton (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour at Talk:Abraham Lincoln

This edit is unacceptable. I have been neither incivil nor disruptive and have not even edited the article lately. Moreover, the only reason I showed up again is that other editors had expressed, both on my talk page and on the article talk page, concerns about the lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln. Under the circumstances, if you wanted me to leave the discussion you could have sent me a polite email asking me to step back for awhile and I would have done, happily. I had already agreed on the talk page that waiting 90 days or so was a helpful notion and was only replying to straggling comments. To put it in a friendly way and very much assuming your good faith, let's pretend you handled it like you should have and I will step back. Meanwhile, since you're an admin and seem to have gotten a bit lost, I humbly suggest you take a moment to review, if you like, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NPOV and notably, WP:V. Either way, if you have any lingering concerns, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through my email link. You do have my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit was highly inappropriate since no such "concensus" exists. It is simply your opinion - one that violates WP:AGF. Indeed, you won't find any edits from those who oppose this link that claim "we can't have it because it's critical". And that's just not appropriate. Rklawton 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Since I see little consensus (and zero helpful consensus) for my take on the article, even if I strongly disagree with your means of communicating your opinion, we do happen to wholly and sincerely agree on the same outcome, which is that I step back from the article for awhile. I'm happy to do it and only came back because two different (but I must say, WP-inexperienced) editors lately posted their concerns about the stark lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln on my talk page. The article isn't even on my watchlist. Let's think of this as settled then, ok? I'm not so hard to get along with and was bowing out of the discussion anyway, you didn't have to say a thing. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think your comment was appropriate then? Rklawton 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you asking? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am asking because 1) this is a rather obvious example of an inappropriate edit, 2) to see if you'll do the civil thing and apologize to the editors you abused, and 3) failing that, to use as evidence pursuant to a proposal for a community ban against your future editing. Rklawton 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that User:Gwen Gale is hardly in any position to lecture others on the issue of civility; user is (at least on the AL talk page) in the habit of acting outside of consensus and seems to think that demonstrably political and fringe positions belong on the AL main page. Cheerful interjections aside, Gwen Gale, please stop making disruptive edits on the Abraham Lincoln page after discussion has gone against you. BusterD (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, BusterD. However, I have not acted outside of consensus, I have measured consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you have acted outside of consensus on numerous occasions, and then recommended that others review various policies when they dared revert you. Cheers! Mr Which??? 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You've very welcome, Gwen Gale. I hope you enjoy. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It is you, Gwen Gale, whose behavior approaches violation of our expectations of civility. Rklawton has been marvelously patient with you. WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to give equal time to every attack site and fringe nutcase, such as the Rockwell material you have persisted in expecting us to treat seriously. The Lincoln article has plenty of sound scholarship, and incorporates criticism of Lincoln and his actions in the appropriate places. We are under no obligation to provide a hosting service for links to neo-Confederate apologists without credentials or credibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike, Lew Rockwell is not a neo-Confederate apologist (wou might want to do some reading up). Are we done now? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The opinion pieces he posts on his "King Lincoln" archive are indeed from neo-Confederate apologists. You might want to stop insulting people who question your sources. Cheerio! Mr Which??? 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is Rklawton's talk page, not the Gwen Gale bashing zone. Bye all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No one is "bashing" you, they're questioning your sources, and the fact that you insult people with your condescending "recommendations" that they "read up" on wikipolicies that only you think they violated. You brought the discussion here. If you wish it to continue at your talkpage, I'm sure people could cheerfully navigate over there! Glad tidings to you! Mr Which??? 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we take this talk where it belongs? BusterD (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since apparently that didn't work either, I've archived talk here. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to take this up a level?

She is showing no willingness to even consider that she's been much less than helpful at Abraham Lincoln. At what point do we take the evidence up a level? Mr Which??? 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we just stop editing on the subject. User has agreed to avoid linking the Rockwell site to any presidential site for 88 more days. If user honors that, all the rest of this is just unnecessary energy spent. If user decides to replace all variant uses of the idiom "vandalism" with pictures of little bunnies on user's page, who am I to argue? What user does to user's own page is of zero importance to me. User's contributions in pagespace are of great concern to me. My suggestion is that we ignore the (perhaps intentionally easily provoked) drama and pay attention to user's contribs for violation of the warning. User has not edited AL page since 12/1. We act best on actions in pagespace, not mere annoying talk behavior. IMHO. I believe we've established our position about user's actions in talk by posting and endorsing the vandalism tag. BusterD (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I most certainly agree to not repost the link, there is no meaningful consensus for it. Moreover, given the state of consensus at the article, I'll be happy to stay away from Abraham Lincoln for 90 days, since it's not even in my core areas of interest. Moreover, if I do wish to do any editing there in the meantime, I'll gladly approach BusterD and work with him on entering any suggestions into the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Lincoln is in my area of interest, so I will be keeping an eye on it anyway. Mr Which??? 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as we agree not to waste any more unnecessary time in discussion, I'm very satisfied with the resolution as proposed. I will continue to watch and edit the AL page and talk; also in my field of study. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool with me, too. I would like to see the development of a controversies section with the obvious caveat that we focus on academic rather than crank works. I believe there are some excellent analysis of his suspension of habeas corpus, as well as other military and constitutional issues. We might also/instead consider requesting an article review with an eye toward regaining FA status. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please visit her talkpage, where she's placed an accusation of bad faith editing as a reply to a sympathetic editor. I find this incredibly offensive, and have asked her to remove the accusation. As of my last check, the accusation remained. Mr Which??? 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not accused Mr Which of bad faith. I have strongly asserted he edited in good faith. Please ask Mr Which to let this all drop. Alternately, I'm open to your suggestions, I was only linking to the archive. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And in "linking" to the archive, you accused everyone who dared challenge you of editing in bad faith, which includes me, Rklawton, Buster, and many other editors. I "drop it" when you delete the accusation of bad faith. Mr Which??? 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe everyone involved has edited in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the post where you accuse us of editing otherwise. That's all I'm asking. Mr Which??? 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No such post exists to my knowledge (note, we're discussing this on my talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't agree

Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oft Blocked User?

I just saw the article Corcoran and you said you removed unsourced material which is NOW sourced.You also stated I was an often blocked user,may I enquire as to where you got that impression?This is extremely irritating of you to suggest so as my intentions are not well meaning,how dare you.~~

I based my comments on my analysis of the article's edit history. If my analysis was incorrect, I apologize. Next point: it would be helpful if you would indicate page numbers in your references and provide in-line citations to show which reference goes with each piece of information, that would be great. This link will take your to our citation templates page which provides many different examples. If you need help adding these citations as references, please don't hesitate to ask on the article's talk page. If you include the information you are trying to add and indicate where it should go, another editor will likely come along and complete the task for you. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok very well.At least you intentions on the edit were meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cú Culainn (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Silver Star discussion

You might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've added more thoughts on the talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin armours again

it's me again is any hope for Kremlin armours photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.131 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that easy. I need to go through my archive, and then I need to identify each piece from the armory's catalogue. It'll happen, but I've also got work-related tasks, too. I'm self-employed, so as you might imagine, my "boss" is a real pain. Rklawton 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a detail image of Boris' armor to replace the copyvio scanned from the Armoury's guide book. It illustrates the flat rings in contrast to the more typical style from his barmitsa. Rklawton (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
GREAT THANKS! :-) don't you have a photo of whole baidana? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.187 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Baidana is a style of ring, and I only have detailed images of these rings. I have nice images of a plate/mail joint and a lamellar/mail joint if that is of interest. Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK! Thanks again! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.244.117 (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario Typo - Can You Correct?

Please see comments by Songflower in Perro de Presa Canario discussion.

Frangible (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Frangible (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jean LeRoque

I tagged it as nonsense/hoax because I couldn't find one mention of the person on google. The article mentions their supposed fame, and backs it up with refs from journals supposedly by and about this person. I could find no mention of the ref documents either. So article about someone who I can't find any proof of, backed up by documents I can't find any existence of looked like a hoax to me. I have no *explicit* proof of hoax, just that it matched a pattern for creation of hoaxes I have seen from other editors before. Improbcat (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU

I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here on Wikipedia. I didn't think that could really happen. This is just a website! I thought. But no. I was wrong. I want to say thank you for your patience and counsel with me. Some folks have been a bit abrupt, and between figuring out how to make words blue, not to mention getting the reference codes right, not to mention understand what references are not considered appropriate, I've been barely able to breathe! Everybody thinks I'm a vandal, and I'm not, I'm just doing everything wrong.

Anyways, thanks for your patience and counsel regarding the journals. We found an amazing collection that belonged to my grandfather and his brother -- apparently this was their hobby. Some incredible stuff - I just can't believe it! I'm having so much fun reading them and learning so much that I guess I got overexcited. I'm reluctant to take them into a university (safety issues), but maybe that'd be best. This information is truly amazing.

So I guess I'll just give up Wikipedia and leave it to the experts. I just wanted to include some of this stuff I'm learning, but maybe this isn't the right place for it. I'd heard that Wikipedia was supposed to be the collected intelligence of everyone in the world, and I felt I had something to contribute. I guess I was wrong.

Your friend, Clay (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

appendix L

is called "Appendix L Interim Report on WTC". Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page - and take heed. Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a interim report on the Working Collapse Hypothesis, please restrain from making threats, please assume the good faith. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton duel GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Burr-Hamilton duel. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you significantly edited the article (as determined by WikiDashBoard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton (talk)

QE's disruption

I can't deal with the guy anymore. Raul even suggests blocking him. Perhaps we could contact Raul (or some other uninvolved admin) about placing a short block on this account to prevent his disruption. Then, if he continues, the block could be extended. Your thoughts? Mr Which??? 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What to heck am I disrupting? Your beauty sleep, your nerves, your talkpages? How can this sort of crap be acceptable! Why would I waste my time here, what to...uf, uf, uf... did I do wrong?! No, I certainly have no time for this, and after all said and done, I definitely lack the will. Please, there's no need to wake this Raul persona! Good night and good luck with the project. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You are disrupting 9/11-related articles, by attempting to foist your conspiratorial theories on the articles. It seems you will not stop doing so. Classic disruption. And filling an edit summary with what is commonly thought of as symbols used to replace profanity is not good form either. Mr Which??? 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
QE, if you have difficulty following our policies and guidelines, then your decision to leave is undoubtedly for the best. Good-bye and good luck. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres

I reverted your malicious edit. "The Independent" and RAI are not fringe sources - they have rather more reliability and credibility than, for example, the New York Times. - Sarah777 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This belongs on the article's talk page. Oh, and characterizing my edits as "malicious " is not civil and violates the good faith assumption. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, as you are clearly engaging in edit warring the warning belongs here. Which source do you think is "fringe"? The Independent or RAI? (Sarah777 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Discussions about an article belong on the article's talk page where all interested editors may participate. Editing warring involves reverting without discussion - which isn't something I have done. Rklawton (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes you have. Check the chronology. First you reverted; then you want to discuss. I call that edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
My first edit and all subsequent edits included detailed edit summaries. You reverted back without so much as an edit summary. Rklawton (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You have reverted again. Please note I did not "revert"; I resubmitted the massacre with yet another reference (the 4th). YOU should stop reverting. OK? (Sarah777 (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Adding a non-source (self-published) doesn't count - check WP:3RR if you like. I will not hesitate to block you if you continue. Adding obvious POV sources to support your POV violates NPOV. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you have blocked this user. Rklawton, I am by no means a sympathizer with left-wing POV pushers, but this was a horrendous personal block, and you should know that. Admins don't block people they're in an edit war with. I ask you to remove this block right now, and bring it to the appropriate venue and ask another, uninvolved admin to do the block for you. Because I guarantee it will be overturned if you don't do so yourself right now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Absolutely right. Admin should refrain from this type of behaviour.--NAHID 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit war began before I got there, and I attempted to straighten it out by letting Sarah know what she needed to do. If you are correct, then another admin will straighten this out in short order, and no harm done. However, I believe the block will stand on 3RR grounds if not TE. Rklawton (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have brought this up on a thread at the bottom of ANI. Feel free to comment. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Have done. Rklawton (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I noticed that Rklawton has violated WP:3RR ([36])--NAHID 07:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You probably want to post that on ANI. However, if you'll read WP:3RR, you'll see that my last reversion probably wouldn't be considered a violation. Rklawton (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for edit warring on list of massacres. These are the edits concerned: [37], [38], [39], [40]. The reverting only stopped here after you blocked the user you were edit warring with, which leads me to believe that there's a strong chance you would start edit warring again with anyone else who made substantially similar edits. --bainer (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock| Prior to this block
1) I had already apologized in the ANI thread above
2) another editor reverted my edits in the article in question - and I didn't revert back though I continued participating in various talk pages and the ANI thread noted above, all of which rather disproves the notion that I would have continued edit warring
3) none of the admins participating on the ANI thread recommend I be blocked from editing
4) The blocking admin took unilateral action even though several admins were involved in this matter on the ANI page - which isn't very respectful of the ANI process or the other admins involved.}}

Rklawton (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the blocking admin appears to be off-wiki at present. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The editor has apologised and recognised they were not the appropriate person to block Sarah777, and indicated that they had not continued edit warring on the article.

Request handled by: LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who has had various dealings with Lawton, the admin who blocked him should at least be admonished. Thebainer took action that was not even close to supported by consensus at AN/I. It's difficult to understand his reasoning in blocking an admin who was both (1) contrite for the ill-advised block, and (2) clearly not edit-warring at the time of the block. Mr Which??? 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    If Rklawton wants to bring up the matter, privately or publicly, then that should be a matter for them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

I think you are doing a fantastic job for all of us on Wikipedia, keep up the good work. Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikicalendar

Hello. I noticed that you played a significant role in the formation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. While I think I know why, I was wondering why you are no longer active in the project. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I must also say you have done so much brilliant work for the project so far and it is a shame to see that you are currently inactive. I hope the block hasn't rendered a retired Wikipedian. Your contributions have been greatly valued. :-) Lradrama 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Gwen Gale

Thank you for your opposition. I post this anonymously since I am one of several former editors who have been the victims of Gwen/Wyss' ruthless tactics when she is confronted with people she can't control, some of whom are quite knowledgeable in their areas of expertise. These tactics include such relatively innocuous, but anti-Wiki policy, behaviors like name-calling (amply documented if you take time to read Wyss' talk page or Google her), but, more insidiously, getting Editors with whom she's in conflict (which is most of the time) blocked for various reasons due to her longstanding relationships with other Administrators. While she used to complain about others "gaming the system," it was Wyss/Gwen herself who was non pareil in the gaming category. In fact there is a small coterie of "Wyss Survivors", as we term ourselves, who banded together via private email over the past 2 years or so, and you will notice that it was only in the past two weeks when two of us posted acrostics to Gwen's talk page "outing" her as Wyss that she finally admitted she was Wyss, something she had denied for close to a year. This was obviously done to circumvent any negative votes in the RfA. However, more importantly, her assertion that her only sockpuppet was "The Witch" is patently false. She has a long history of creating socks which she uses to defame other Users/Editors with whom she is having conflicts. Though it's obvious that she will be approved as an Administrator, I hope that you at least will keep an eye on her behavior. I will say that she seems to have become a bit more relaxed in her guise as Gwen than she ever was as Wyss, but her troubling behaviors do continue to this day, as you have noted. I'm curious why no one has mentioned her anti-Wikipedia screed which ran on Wyss' talk page for months after she "permanently resigned" from Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. 24.22.24.202 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable and very serious concerns about POV pushing, problematic edits and judgement when there is strong disagreement. I will take heed and very carefully address them. I welcome your comments anytime. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ford. Again.

Our friend Thomas Paine 1776 is back at Henry Ford, yet again trying to whitewash For'ds aanti-semitic history. I could use your help again with this. Thanks ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK?

RK has made no comment since 22 December. Anyone out there know if he is OK? Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back! Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


I am relieved too!, even though he is completely wrong about the Lincoln death photo I put in, I am glad RKlawton is okay!

-)

High regards, ([[User talk::cathytreks|talk]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.41.9 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

oh no, it was me mr. bot, it is eye....cathytreks.... the Lincoln death photo photo girl friend of RKlawton.

cathytreks