User talk:Uncle uncle uncle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Editor can, and will, make difficult edits if needed.
This user is the owner of 92 Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.

Contents

[edit] Hagerman Bot

I am being stalked by The Hagerman Bot Uncle uncle uncle 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Ward Churchill

OK, I've taken a look at the page and picture in question. You certainly have a point about the verifiability of the source: although WP:V and WP:RS contain no specific guidelines about images, I would say that one editor's assertion of the origin of the drawing does not satisfy WP:V's rules on dubious and/or self-published sources. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it seems that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violated WP:CIVIL in accusing you of "random destruction". Not that I'm necessarily saying the image should be removed, but I think you have a valid point as per WP policy. If it would help, I will contact the user in question and try to negotiate a compromise; the next step would be a request for comment on the page, and possibly a strawpoll. Please tell me (on my AMA desk, not my talkpage) whether you find this an acceptable plan. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing

In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the [1] page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.

Hello Uncle, I've had the chance to read your reply on the Talk:Ward Churchill page and I thought you made some good points. I appreciate your focusing on the specifics of the policy. I am putting together a comment or two but I have some things going on right now that I have to pay attention to. I'll try to post it in the next couple of days or so. Thanks for your patience, cheers! Cafe Irlandais 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Ward Churchill case

Hi, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I've been very busy both on WP and in RL. You did the right thing in going to RfC; the lack of comments from outside editors is unfortunate. The next thing you should do, since the RfC doesn't seem to have resolved matters, is start a strawpoll, i.e. a brief survey of users' views on the issue. It looks like the general consensus on the page is generally on your side and against LotLE, so the strawpoll should be helpful to you. If you like, I'll set up the strawpoll on the page myself. (After that, if the dispute isn't resolved, the next step is to take it to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, but hopefully it isn't a serious enough dispute to go that far.) Walton monarchist89 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for an update

Hi, just out of interest, was the Ward Churchill image issue resolved amicably in the end? Walton Vivat Regina! 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikinews: is acceptable ref?

Look at it as a wikilink to another article, rather than an extenal reference. When we write, e.g., "the collapse of the Soviet Union followed perestroika", we don't demand a reference for this fact, becase the wikilinked articles contain sufficient amount of references. The wikinews article about pope's mishap contains a summarized description of the event, as well as several newspaper references, i.e., there is no wikipedia:Verifiability problem. A general common sense rule is to demand and include external references only into the articles most immediately and specifically dedicated to the subject in question. Otherwise wikipedia will turn into a huge pile of references, duplicated everywhere. `'mikka 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to User:Kelly Martin

Hi - please don't edit people's userpages without their permission, it's generally not the done thing. If you have some issue with Kelly Martin's userpage content, please take it up with her on her talk page - this would probably be the courteous thing to do. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, your justification is misguided. Aside from the section you cite being in dispute, it actually quite narrowly defines an "attack site" as that which (maliciously) publishes private information of a Wikipedians' identity. Kelly's blog clearly not such a site.--cj | talk 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a nonsense to suggest that there's such a rule. The issue here is simply what constitutes an "attack site". Because the relevant section is in dispute, it is necessary to consider an attack site within the bounds of the ArbCom's ruling and aside from the rest of the policy:

The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

It is fine that you consider an attack site to constitute anything containing what normally would be considered a personal attack on-wiki, but at the present time, the only clear-cut definition is the ArbCom's ruling. It is inappropriate, IMV, to enforce anything else. --cj | talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
CJ's advice on this matter is most astute - I suggest you take it. I know that you were acting in good faith, for what it's worth. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Unionoida vs Unionidae

I am not a biologist either, so I could be wrong. I think I've been staring at the computer screen for too long. Please change it back if I've redirected in error. ... discospinster talk 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOR proxy users

I don't know all the editors using TOR proxies, and don't see any reason to reveal the editors who I do know using them. The issue is only relevant in this case because the person in question was running for adminship while violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Page

Image:Fooled-you2.jpg This user has been fooled by Destructo_087.

You sort of cheated but still here you go. Sorry about the latness of this reward but I was busy doing other stuff.--DestructoTalk to me 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, please don't use the ArbCom case to post links to a page where people are speculating on the real name of an editor who wishes to remain anonymous. If you think a little more about individual human beings who might be affected, and then think is the link really really necessary, and then think is there any way around it, you might find that it's not actually necessary. If it were necessary, you could use email. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Reply for threading:
Hello,
With respect to your post here: [2]
I believed that all information about the real name the editor in question had been removed from the site and that the editor in question no longer believed the site qualified as an attack site as stated: "I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website." [3]
I certainly did not intend to link to revealing information, I included a link to the text I quoted so that other's could verify the correctness of my quoting. Uncle uncle uncle 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plot search

See User talk:Pleasantville for a possibility. Tvoz |talk 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wp:Editors willing to make difficult edits

I agree in principle, but you've put the article in main space rather than Wiki talk. That, I believe is where it belongs. The deletion is only a proposal, not a decision, and one which should not be taken lightly. I would expect an admin to boot it to WP:AfD or WP:Move it into an appropriate location. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - an editor has moved it already.
In that case, assuming I can find it, I'll take the speedy off. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk in you browser favorites.

No, I haven't a clue why my talk page is in your browser favorites. Cheers, Cecropia 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise

New accounts may discuss the candidacy, but their "votes" are not counted, nor should they be added to the totals. Corvus cornix 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scooba

Have you given your Scooba a name?  :) - http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9789960-39.html?tag=nefd.blgs Corvus cornix 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope nor the Roomba. I got them last year with some kind of deal. Buy the Scooba, get a Rooba free. The Scooba does a better job than I expected, but not as good as a human could do. I don't use it much - I think I'm too lazy to move the chairs in the kitchen. The Roomba works pretty well too - I'd like to have one of the auto-charging scheduler units, but even then the collection bin is too small and would have to be emptied every few days anyway. It needs a built in incinerator or the ability to empty the collection bin under my bed Uncle uncle uncle 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I had too many problems with my Scooba... and I've never managed to bond with it. *Dan T.* 14:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits

Hi,

I noticed you created the above page a few weeks back. In principle, people helping each other is a Very Good Thing. However I had a couple of misgivings about it. (A lot of good ideas don't always work out as their well meaning founders intended, for example, we just had one of those closed at WP:MFD, the community sanctions noticeboard.) I've posted a note on the administrators' noticeboard to get others views. I thought you'd want to know so you could comment too, as its creator.

If you want to discuss let me know :)

Best

FT2 (Talk | email) 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits

Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break

==[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]]== Egads! You're absolutely right about my error. I've responded on that talk page. Thanks! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Warning This warning template has been placed to underscore the message left for you by another user on User talk:Giano II. If you continue to threaten children with far too sophisticated puddings ("He makes her eat desserts she just doesn't understand") you will be blocked from all future thanksgivings for the good of the public, as you would create far to much drama and controversy. We will be monitoring you with seekrit espionage methods your lesser ranking mind couldn't possibly comprehend, to ensure this warning is heeded.

Merkinsmum (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. It took me quite a while to find the source of the quote above, even with the correct spelling. The reference librarian I checked with seemed to have a low opinion of gentlemen who quote from "Lotita." Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol, you discovered my secret, do you mean Lolita or some less revered, more specialist literature?:) I was actually giving a nod to this sickeningly mawkish charity ad, which has been parodied by other charities who wanted a less cheesy method of advertising.:) [4] Merkinsmum (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I had no idea where the quote came from, but "He makes her eat desserts she just doesn't understand" looked like it could have been a quote from a novel that I should have read at one point.Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email

Could you possibly enable email as I wish to ask you something more privately?Merkinsmum (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I have enabled email. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia_editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits

A category you created is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedia_editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits. User:Dorftrottel 16:51, January 15, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfB questions

Thank you for asking those, I enjoyed having a think. I've responded. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

Uncle uncle uncle 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


X Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) X Uncle uncle uncle 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits

Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)