User talk:Wallie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Confusion???

You posted this message on my talk page. What are you refering too. I can't tell:-) Sorry if it is something simple, but frankly you have me confused!!!Eagle talk 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, please respond on my talk page, thanks!!!

Is this about an RfA? If so which one? ThanksEagle talk 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes that must be it. Sorry for not getting you the first time, but I did not know about whom were you refering to. Thanks for the clarification. Nice to know that someone else is thinking that same thing!Eagle talk 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: I would consider archiving some of the older stuff on this page. It makes it easier on people with slower browsers. (not me, but just thought I would give you the heads up:-). Eagle talk 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you don't know how to do this, I would be glad to assist!
OK. Managed to do it! Thanks. Wallie 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Howard

I stand by what I said. You're writing about your own, personal, twenty year old fond memories of someone, which is not neutral. I really don't aim to get into a pissing contest with you over this, bu~~t please take the word of everyone else who has commented on this matter (who have actually lived in Australia since the 1980s) in saying that this is not the contemporary meaning of the label. If this stood for any length of time, I guarantee Wikipedia would wind up getting quite publicly laughed at in The Age or the Sydney Morning Herald. Rebecca 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Popularity and honesty are two completely different things. I dare you to find even one political commentator (Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and Janet Albrechtsen excluded) who has seriously suggested that in the last decade. Rebecca 06:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think there are issues with the article, take them up there and I'm sure you'll find a willing audience. Adding opinionated material that is verifiably false (or at least, completely unable to be referenced from any reputable source), however, does not help the situation. Rebecca 06:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tusmore

Just noticed you used to live in Adelaide, and Tusmore in particular. If you're at all interested in your old home and interested in expanding content on it, please feel free to do so. Enjoy your time here on wikipedia! michael talk 06:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Esperanza

If you meet the Membership requirements (please read that blurb) then sure - just add your name to the list. --Celestianpower háblame 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the membership one; no, no committee. --Celestianpower háblame 08:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Wallie, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, Freakofnurture and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in June, and you are more than welcome to take part, by voting or by listing yourself as a candidate.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

--Celestianpower háblame 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan and Kiand

Yes, Wallie. It was my action. No-one suggested it to me. There was no collusion. He didn't simply cross a line, he drove a bulldozer over it and make rude gestures while doing so! Actually the moment I did it I had a host of others, all independently, saying they were about to do it at the same time also and I had beaten them to it by minutes. BTW Wallie I wasn't going to block you. You caught me on a bad few days. A lot of articles had been vandalised, and you turned up just afterwards and touched on the same topics, quite innocently. I jumped to the wrong conclusion, and I apologise. But you wouldn't have been blocked for it. Work (god, for some reason I keep calling with Worth. Am I thinking of Harry Worth or something?) was quite lucky not to have been banned a lot earlier, or to have been hauled before the arbitration committee or Jimbo. If they had taken one look at his work and his comments they would banned him instantly too. He went far far far beyond acceptable behaviour. For a start, he could have got WP crucified in the press if any of the media saw the libel he posted about public figures on his user page. The page had to protected to stop him getting himself into serious legal trouble. (WP is protected in law. He wouldn't have been, and would have been sued for every penny he had.) His comments were vicious. But no. I consulted with no-one. I don't defend admins as a club. If fact few do. If a friend of mine steps out of line I'll say that. I even blocked one. And if they wrongly attack someone I'd slapped down before, I'll attack the friend making the wrong attack and defend the person I might have had a row with before. I hope that clears up matters. One tip. By all means raise issues about admin conduct if you wish, but don't use Work as an example. He alienated just about the entire WP, right-wing and left-wing alike. Defending him risks making people think you are like him. That would be unfair to you. He was a serious problem on WP who caused serious legal difficulties, serious vandalism, and posted serious and frequently extraordinarily outrageous attacks, some of the worst I have seen in four years here. I'd put him among the top 5 bigots I've come across on WP. He simply isn't worth defending. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 10:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Wallie, I didn't respond, because I have no knowedge of Kiand's "methods", and you haven't given any evidence of them. If you have evidence and want to do something about it, please go through the proper channels rather than just sniping at him. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Wallie. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Kiand is "still patrolling" Aidan's page. Obviously, he has it on his watchlist, so if he sees something worth replying to, he replies. For you to have seen it, you must also have that page on your watchlist, so what's the big deal? I admit my comment was directed at you, and I certainly had no wish to offend you, but don't consider that asking someone to move on is offensive. It seems that for some time you have been using Aidan's talk page to direct criticism against Kiand. That's not what the talk page is for. If you're not prepared to move on, and if you really do have some case against him, then file an RfC — although I have to warn you that RfCs that lack substance often turn into RfCs against the certifiers. I'm just getting a bit tired of seeing all your accusations against another editor when you won't take the accusations to the appropriate place. You accused me of sticking up for him because he was my friend. I don't even have his page on my watchlist. So yes, I would still ask you to move on. And I don't think that keeping a page on a watchlist and informing someone that Aidan is indefinitely banned is a failure to move on; but a constantly-repeated implication that Kiand is in some way responsible for Aidan's banning is definitely a failure to move on.
By the way, I made a small change to your user page. Hope you don't mind. AnnH ♫ 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wacko Jacko

Cheers for interviening and heloing a bit there. No one else seemed too botherd. I just don't see why I should have to compromise with some little vandal. ANyway, he seems to have gone away. More users like you, etc.--Crestville 13:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

lol, if you say so mate. I think I deserved a slap on the wrist and the admins weren't too bad about it. You on the other hand never even sullied your good name in the first place by swearing or fighting, so more credit to you. Cheers for helping me out anyway, much appreciated. I just don't think the lad understands the point of wikipedia--Crestville 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha, same here mate. Fight the power etc. We should start our own little wikipedia underground renagade force, like the A-Team. Actually, let's not do that.--Crestville 10:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Schmeling

Actually I wasn't arguing the content of that sentence; I was critiquing the grammar and word placement of your text. But never mind. It's really not that important. As for the Schmeling-Louis fights, well the first once was a lot more interesting than the second.

You were quite right. It was a great period. Thank you. Wallie 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Everything is fine with me. Thanks for asking. Looks like you're still editing some controversial articles. Jkelly 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One can sometimes wind up attracting the attention of an expert editor at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but not reliably. Posting a request at a WikiProject is more likely to result in expert attention, but relatively few articles have a related WikiProject. One can search the Wikipedia:Categories that the article is in for other articles, find ones that are good, and check their history to look up who has contributed sensibly to related articles. Jkelly 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia talk:Categorization? Jkelly 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding edits such as this: [1]. I don't know if it was your intention, but mocking a complaint as being a joke is very incivil. Incivil remarks only escalate situations, and given the severity of the situation already, it does not need to me escalated any more. Paul Cyr 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't my intention. Undesired result. Big sorry on your page. Thanks. Wallie 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Major works"

Hello, Wallie. I appreciate your point on my talk page, that people should be given a few works that sum up Beethoven's achievement and to lead them into exploration, but we need a consensus about what those works should be. I think it needs more discussion, because I don't find the list to be quite correct as you left it, and I've explained why on the talk page. I have removed the paragraph altogether for the time being, until agreement can be reached on the Beethoven talk page. Meanwhile, keep up the good work! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem at all. I "borrowed" it from somewhere else! lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your post at the V-Pump

Hi, I have no doubt that you meant well, but I am afraid you didn't read the discussion. You addressed this to Arniep: "Most importantly, ignore incoming name calling. I is always the name caller at fault, not the callee. ..." - ironically, it was Arniep who offended others. S/he identified a group of editors as "Jews" and made some quite inappropriate (IMO) group allegations. For that, Arniep was criticized by many editors and admins. Just FYI. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

Just wanted to say hi, given we are both UFPers... ^_^; --Cat out 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to you too, CC. From Wallie 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh just noticed.. it was the UN flag.... >_< --Cat out 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A taunt

Actually, the word was "vacuous". To quote wiktionary: "Showing a lack of thought or intelligence; vacant." From the Latin 'vacuus', meaning vacant. --Golbez 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII and Canada

I understand your concern. However, you should note that Canada was the only country (with the exception of the United States and Great Britain) that undertook the task of assaulting one of the Normandy breaches, despite its allegiance to the monarchy and Greaet Britain. By the end of the day, it was Canadians (not Americans, the Free French or Britain) that made the furtherest advances into France, before they were driven back by the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. You should also note that during the Battle of Britain, Canada supplied Britain with 106 pilots, the highest number of foreign pilots to serve with the RAF than any other country in the world. By the end of the war, Canada was the fourth largest army in the world, behind Russia, Great Britain and America. If that isn't impressive, I'm not sure what is.

For further corroboration that Canadians were the largest force in the Battle of Britain, I refer you to this site [2] which details the contributions Canadians have made. You listed the salient contributions by Canadians in the Battle of Caen, Juno and Dieppe. I would also like to remind you that Canadians fought in Asia (Hong Kong), Ortona, the Battle of the Scheldt, the Battle of the Atlantic and [[Operation Verrierres Ridge, Operation Totalise, the Falaise Gap, the Netherlands and Holland. Yes we might not have been as powerful as India in terms of man-power, but I do truly think that for a nation of our size (with only around 8 million people) our contributions far exceeded what the world expected of us, especially given the battles Canadians participated in. In fact, throughout the course of the war, Canada was the only non-European and non-American country to have an army under the command of SHAEF (The First Canadian Army).

[edit] I am most certainly staying at Wikipedia

I've responded on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tony Sidaway

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Jkelly 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He certainly can be off-putting sometimes. It is also simply true that many people argue about trivial issues while there are a great number of more important things that need attention go without it. One cannot, however, force volunteers to take on things that don't interest them. Jkelly 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Hilton

Don't worry Wallie, I'm not one of those guys who are out to get Paris Hilton. You can count on me =). BTW, how have you been? Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been real good, and I'm most certainly the same has been for you! Эйрон Кинни (t) 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My comment on the Holocaust page

Well, you could try something without the word "Jew" in it. Like suggesting we disable editing for Holocaust Survivors. Nah, that's no good either...

Aaanyway. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so its supposed to be edited by prejudiced people among others. It doesn't matter who edits the page in the process, so long as there are enough people willing to make sure the end result is bias-free.

You see, you were fundamentally wrong in suggesting editing should be disabled for anyone for fear of bias. What you should have done, was to point out the exact sections of the article you feel are unencyclopedic (or plain wrong). "Adress the content, not the person". --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federer

Hi, I see that you added "New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year" to Roger Federer for 2005 ([3]). I've asked at the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, and no-one yet has even heard of this award. Do you have a source you could point us to? Regards, Ziggurat 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the source! Perhaps a rephrasing is in order, as the fact that it's a people's choice award is very relevant info. "New Zealand People's Choice International Sportsperson of the Year", maybe? Ziggurat 22:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racehorse categories

As a contributor to racehorse articles I would appreciate you taking a look at Category_talk:Racehorses and expressing any views you have regarding Racehorse categories. - Cuddy Wifter 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Beckham

Hi. I've reverted the change you made to the David Beckham article. I would certainly argue that he is as famous as the quote suggests. Yes, he's known primarily for his football "skills", but the reason why he is such a marketing force is because of his fame and influence, unmatched even by George Best. At its peak, after his marriage to Posh Spice, it could be said to have almost matched Beatlemaia. He has marketed Gillette products, Pepsi and those sunglasses (I@ve forgotten the name) and is well known throughout the world (From Iraq to South Korea, from the Ivory Coast to Argentina) not just as a footballer but also as part of a celebrity couple, a good looking guy, his fashion sense and the products he markets. His fame probably exceeds the well known logos of some of those products. It may be hard to verify, but I'm sure that he's better known than many MNCs in parts of the Africa, the Middle East and South America. I mean, a few years ago only 92% of those surveyed could recognise PM Blair, whereas 98% recognised Beckham. I wish I could find a reference for that. Also, Hilary Clinton may be better known, but no one was suggesting that Beckham was the most famous personin the world and was therefore more famous than her (though I'm sure in terms of image/instant "recongnisability" Beckham would win. BTW, I'm no great lover of the man despite being a Manchester United fan. hedpeguyuk 7 July 2006, 23:15 (UTC)

Actually, in the article from which the quote was taken mentions Time magazine listing him as one of its Top 100 most influential global icons. Such a rank would be quite impressive for someone who wasn't known very well outside of football (especially from a respected American publication). hedpeguyuk 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Flavour of the month"? Do you even know the guy? He has has been consistanty famous for 8 - 9 years now! "Beckham" almost is a brand. Do you know how much Manchester United and Real Madrid made/make on shirt sales that have his name on it? I'm sure others would like to have their say. I would suggest that before you just remove the quote, you actually discuss it on the talk page first. hedpeguyuk 8 July 15:36 (UTC)

Look at the article's talk page. I've made my comments known there. Beckham is actually MASSIVE in both Japan and China. hedpeguyuk 15:46 8 July (UTC)

Lang Lang? He was a goat from a local farm down my house. Also what do you mean be "even" Kylie Minougue. There's nothing wrong with a bit of camp Kylie. I suggest you check my latest comments, and Jooler's links on the talk page. Why do you think Real Madrid would be willing to pay 20 million plus for a player who can only pass, cross and take the odd good free kick. Marketing my friend. Also, don't be patronising. hedpeguyuk 16:20 8 July (2006 (UTC)

What? How on earth can David Beckham be famous in England and not Scotland?!?! It's still the UK and the same media. He may not be as popular, as he's English, but he's just as famous. Also, you are not listening. I can assure you that David Beckham IS as famous in the mainland Europe as he is in the UK. THey may not be quite as fanatical as the English (probably due to his nationality!), but he's still well known nevertheless. You don't become a Real Madrid Galactico for nothing. I've actually BEEN to Ghana, North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East and worked in hospitals with people of all ages and I can assure you that for the people on the street, especially with the children, he's famous. As for Asia esp. SE Asia his fame isn't limited to Japan, it stretches to Thailand and Malaysia. I can't explain the Michael Schumacher example, but a google search gives 8.6 million hits for Schumacher. David Beckham gets almost twice that and only half the hits that Pepsi gets. In fact a search for "Beckham" gets 10 million MORE hits than Pepsi. Admittedly not all of those will be about the footballer. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put this on the article's discussion page but I'll also add it here, this is taken from a website "David Beckham" is a more popular Internet search term this year in Indonesian, Norwegian, Hungarian, Turkish, Danish, Swedish and Spanish than it is in English." http://www.oxfordpress.com/sports/content/shared/sports/stories/SOC_BECKHAM_0630_COX.html

If David Beckham isn't very well known in South Africa, then why did Pepsi use Beckham in their ad campaign when they relaunced the product in the country? It was not just Europe in which his adverts were used. . In almost all of the relatively big to moderate football nations (from Nigeria to Japan, from Italy to Brazil) he's very well known. Amongst many other countries (such as Malaysia) he is well known, however that is probably because of his assocation with Manchester United who have a massive fan base there. Yes his fame in other countries, such as the US, is secondary to his wife's (if he himself is known to the general public, it's only because his name features in a film). However, by and large, from my experience in African and Asian countries, he is as recognisable as most MNCs and statesman. After all, to a poor child from Tunis what significance does Microsoft have on his life? Through the sheer popularity of football, combined with Beckhams celebrity status, he is more likely to look up to him than Bill Gates. Anywa,y I'll leave it there otherwise I'll keep going on like a parrot and will not shut up. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006, 17:20 (UTC)

I'm not being emotional, I just know what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. Of course people outside of the UK often don't take him seriously, people in the UK don't really take him seriously. That is something that always puzzles me it's not the sports fans that are so attracted to him but the teenage girls. Yes, Brazil are the more marketable team (they are the most succesful in the history of the sport) but we aren't talking about teams. Across Japan and Europe, Zidane, Ronaldo (although not as much now), Ronaldinho and Raul are taken more seriously as footballers, but there's something about David Beckham (his looks?) that makes him marketable. It is through such marketing, often through MNCs that makes him recognisable across the world as he undoubtedly is if my conversations with people across North and West Africa and the Middle East is anything to go by. hedpeguyuk 17:30 (UTC) 8 July 2006

Why are you suprised that Beckham is famous in North Africa and the Middle East (By NA I mean, Morocco and Algeria as well as Egypt). I remember when Iraq was "liberated" the seeing on television Beckham merchandise on sale with many of the children obviously aware of who he was. See http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/06/will-soccer-do-what-government-couldnt.html Even in Turkey, a place hostile in recent years to English football, I've seen the number of Beckham football shirts. Also see these two websites. Neither of them are European but both comment on Beckham's popularity: - http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2004/05/29/2003157478

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/cs-0606260093jun26,1,4289638.story?coll=cs-soccer-print

I know football is low down on South Africa's list of major sports, but Pepsi obviously had confidence in his image. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006, 17:52 (UTC)


[edit] Materazzi Talk Page

The one doing most harm in reducing a pointed informed and verifiable discussion, is a certain Mt. Centrx. He keeps reverting the user comments, which have confirmable sources, because in his judgement they are not relevant. I have tried my best to convince him on his talk page. He doesnt seem to talk rationale, says that he doest need to know soccer to gauge relevance, and repeats the same thing over and over again. Hope you could at least register your protest.

13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~

[edit] Talk:Marco Materazzi

I have responded to you at Talk:Marco Materazzi#Discussion points about why the general comments by several anonymous/new/random users that have gravitated to this Talk page, are not appropriate for editing or improving the Wikipedia article. This is not meant to be any sort of indictment of you or other users who, through many and long-standing contributions, have demonstrated an interest in improving the encyclopedia, as contrasted with those persons whose sole purpose seems to be in arguing personal opinions rather than creating an encyclopedia article, one of whom was engaging in vandalism. If you are interested in what the above comment by the anonymous user is referring to, see User talk:Centrx#Materazzi et al and User talk:202.141.69.21. —Centrx→talk • 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Zinedine Zidane#Légion d'honneur

You wrote:

"Stop it! You are playing mind games. "Fact gathering is an oxymoron in the British press". This is NOT a press article and you know it full well. Wallie 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

Incorrect on both counts. I am not playing mind games and I know full well that the article came from the British press. I don't know how serious you are (I'm not good at catching subtle humor on the internet) but I'll bite since I have some time to kill. Allow me to explain:

  • The Guardian is part of the British press.
  • The source in question was an opinion piece written by a columnist for the Guardian.
  • A columnist who writes for the Guardia is a member of the British press.
  • I have a low opinion of factual accuracy in British papers, ergo, "fact checking in the British press is an oxymoron", in reference to the factual error in the opinion column.
  • Where is this blog, "a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order", that you speak of?

See, simple, right? Ytny 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize the discussion is a few days old already, but I thought I should respond.
I guess I'm not as familiar with the way the UK press works as I thought, but I have found that columns written by UK sportswriters (for broadsheets like The Times and The Guardian) have contained glaring errors that would have been corrected with a simple factcheck. Of course, US journos make errors too, but they tend to be corrected fairly quickly.
A better comparison, I think, would be a website like The Washington Post. Most of the content, including opinion pieces, appear on the paper edition, though there are some web exclusives. But either way, opinion pieces that appear online are held to the same journalistic standards, as long as the "Washington Post" byline appears at the top. They do have a blog section that is kept separate from the rest of the paper, which is more opinionated and more independent of the paper's editorial tone. Ytny 20:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've lived in the UK for 3 years, so I have some basic knowledge of the papers there. Ytny 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aidan Work

Re that individual. I mentioned before the time of a nutcase he was. He posted this on my talk page tonight.

I see that you've posted an openly racist remark about me on User:Wallie's talk page. That goes to show what a lowlife racist scumbag you, User:Kiand,& User:Hu really are! For that you deserve to burn up in the Lake of Fire in Hell! -(124.197.13.215 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

That is the sort of idiot he is. By the end of his time here he became, deservedly, a laughing stock. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that totally. However Work used his user page to make Libellous comments about a prominent person (the page had to be locked to stop him doing it), launched homophobic and rascist attacks on a lot of people, and abused a range of people, while causing chaos all over the place to articles — he kept moving articles to new names including periods at the end and threw a tantrum when it was pointed out to him that articles on WP never ever ever include a period in the link. Whole pages descended into edit wars, with him against 100% of users. He changed links to add the word British all over the place, and when told to stop used to spit venom at everyone who dared cross him. That sort of stupid comment he posted on my talk page was typical of his behaviour, and is an example of why he is permanently banned from this site. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sviyazhsk

Hi, Wallie! Could you please explain me the reasoning behind this edit of yours? I couldn't figure out what the connection between the village and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I failed to notice that it was a redirect from Tatar. Zoya should really be a dab page, not a redirect. I'll see what I can do about this. Thanks, Wallie!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Park

Hi, just wanted to say that you are mistaken in your assertation that the film Battle of Britain shows Keith Park as airfield commander at Duxford. Trevor Howard plays Park. Kenneth Moore plays the Duxford commander. The person who is arguing with you that Park was commander of 11 group is correct, please check the Battle of Britain (film) and Keith Park articles for confirmation. Shimbo 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth Schwarzkopf

Hi Wallie, Back in December you added the line "Interestingly, she is also the aunt of the United States General in the Gulf War Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr." to the Elisabeth Schwarzkopf article. This has been challenged and there is concern that the Associated Press has picked it up as misinformation for a widely distributed obituary. If you by any chance remember it, please add a source for the info. Thanks, BT 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of World War II

Thank you for your kind words, Wallie. I will be on vacation for the next week or so and therefore, unable to tend to the article and resolve this issue with Haber. If you are knowledgeable on the subject and have sources to cite at your disposal, feel free to contribute. Best,--Hohns3 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII stuff

Wallie, my apologies for initially misunderstanding what the debate was about. Please be assured that I am only interested in friendly debate and no more. --Easter Monkey 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of bias

Wallie, actually you did accuse me of bias several times and of acting in bad faith. To wit:

It is highly offensive to German and Japanese people, as you intend it to be. Wallie 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Habap. I can see you really have it in for the Japanese. For others who are not so one-eyed, you can read Causes of World War 2. Habap, you can just keep on listening to this sort of stuff churned out in the USA around the time. [2] Wallie 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comments and the way you are directing these discussions make it very clear that you hold a very strong bias indeed against the Japanese people, and maybe even against German people too. ... Wallie 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is you that is biased, especially against the Japanese. Your depiction of Germans as "Nazis" is unfortunate too.... Wallie 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I did infer that were you one-eyed, but this is just another way of saying you had a POV, not meant to be a personal attack. If anyone such as yourself replied back in a similar way, that would be OK by me. Wallie 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you twice made similar comments to Nixer:

As you are commenting on what I am saying, I believe you have a strong bias, or worse, against German people. Wallie 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
What did German people ever do to you that you harbor such deep seated feelings against them? Wallie 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it's out there. You've flung accusations of bad faith, racism and bias from the beginning of the discussion. That has no place here. Please refrain from such actions. --Habap 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. I did get confused between you and Haber, and mistook his comments for yours. Hence you rightly got upset with me.
  2. The article at the time was becoming very anti-German and was also poorly written, instead on concentrating on the facts. It has now improved.
  3. I was also trying to correct the text, not attack the authors.
  4. I was called far worse things, but did not bring this up, as it is unimportant, in the "heat of the debate".

Wallie 09:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Am I even allowed to vote on own version? --Woogums 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your support. --Woogums 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, could you please point me to the exact place of the poll (section etc.) Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, let me address your points bit by bit.

"You mentioned you were German. Do you live in Germany?"

Yes, I do live in Germany. Born in Germany and always lived there (save for 10 months).

"Do you believe that Germany was entirely guilty for the whole war ..."

Germany, represented by its government and military, began the war by invading Poland, it extended it further by invading Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Soviet Russia. For that Germany bears the responsibility. Germany is the chief culprit of the war by far.

However, other nations and there government contributed to that development too:

  • The misguided policy behind the Versailles treaty, overly harsh and humiliating.
  • The misguided policy in the Thirties, too soft on the Nazi regime, when some statesmen saw the dangers from the beginning. No, I am not talking about Churchill, but Pilsudski and, yes you heard correctly, Mussolini. Also, I am not talking primarily about the actual appeasement policy of Mr Chamberlain, as that already faced the coming war and tried to postpone it until armaments were ready.
  • The misguided policies in some states created after the 1st World War regarding their (German but not only German) minorities, especially Czechoslavakia.
  • The American withdrawal in 1920.

I could go on but will stop here.

So you see that I do not thinkg that "no other country did any wrong", either leading up to the war and during the war. From the 'jus ad bellum' perspective, Germany's opponents were perfectly in the right, but from the jus in bello' viewpoint they committed several flaws.

However, in regard to the article I must disagree with you. Versailles should be included but not like this. And Germany (not the Germans, you're right on this) started the war: not provoked, not caused as a response, in fact not even triggered, but started. Str1977 (smile back) 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, you wrote "At least I have learnt something. Nazi seems to be considered OK in Germany. Where I come from, people would not use this word, especially to any German person."

No, it is not considered OK to call someone a Nazi unless he is one. Just because it is used as an insult doesn't make it acceptable.

And what your father did was right, as the German soldier was not ipso facto a Nazi - many were, many weren't. Though the army was of course instrumental in waging the war in the first place, many leading officers were decidedly not Nazis, and some entered the army as a former of "inner emigration". So kudoas to your father.

What does that mean for our article:

  • Germany invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.
  • Nazi Germany invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.
  • The Germans invaded Poland etc. might be okay in a given context but should be avoided.
  • The Nazis invaded Poland etc. is unacceptable, as it was the German army.
  • The Germany army invaded Poland etc. is acceptable.

Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see, Wallie, where that equation is happening in the text, least of all in the proposed intros (presented at the poll). I read Germany and German troops but not Germans or Nazis. If I am missing something please directly point me to the problematic wordings. Str1977 (smile back) 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of WWII German gov't

Wallie, I was wondering what is your evaluation of the government in Germany? You seem to indicate that it was no different from the government in the UK, the US or France. Am I understanding your position correctly? --Habap 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that it seems you feel that the German and Japanese governments were no worse that what existed in the democratic countries (or the Soviet Union), which I do not think is the case at all. --Habap 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I gave an explanation on your page, and it seems you and I now broadly agree. Wallie 09:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not certain. There were exceedingly good reasons to fight against the Germans in WWII - far more than just that they were shooting at you. It was far worse than just a government "trying to impress its people" and control more land and people. Not only did they intend to kill people of certain religions and ethnicities, but they also were unwilling to tolerate dissension or even free discussion. Defeating the Axis removed two of the most vicious and inhumane governments from the globe. I don't sense that you agree with that statement. --Habap 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World war 2

I made a very small edit now Ironplay 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please reread WP:NPOV. --Yamla 16:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rjensen

I don't see a reason to make an exception to 3RR here. He was warned. Ashibaka tock 16:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: To-Do List
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  1. In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
  2. The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
  3. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
  4. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
  5. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
  6. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign.
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd
05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Xcellent up for deletion

The New Zealand racehorse Xcellent has been listed for deletion. Some informed comments from thoroughbred enthusiasts would seem to be needed. - Cuddy Wifter 06:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes was strongly suspected being an idiot called User:DW. DW was a menace who reduced whole sections of Wikipedia to chaos, producing edit wars all over the place, creating multiple personae who harrassed and abused users to such an extent that he drove some people off the site altogether. One night alone twenty different articles were simultaneously subject to edit warring by him. Wikipedia had a fight on its hands to drive him off. It got so bad the question of taking an injunction against him was discussed. Users did not know whether he was just mentally unbalanced or just someone enjoying torturing other users for the tell of it. (Apparently it turned out to be the second.) Wilkes probably is that same person. If he was (unfortunately DW existed before current checking facilities existed so we have not got the records to do comparisons) then he is permanently banned from this site by Jimbo Wales. Wilkes behaviour was investigated by the arbcom (before suspicions arose from his behaviour that made people wonder if it was DW). They found his behaviour grossly unacceptable. He was banned from editing certain articles because of the chaos he was creating around him, including what can basically be called wikistalking "opponents" (following them around, editing articles they edit, changing text they have changed, and generally freaking people out — remember some WP editors are children and we have to protect them from all that. I was wikistalked by one person and remember how awful it was). He then created phoney new identities to try to dodge the bans and continued attacking and stalking people. That is why he is banned.

Ultimately where someone wikistalks and harrasses people they have to be gotten off the site for the safety of others, irrespective of the quality of the work. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

I have removed your recent changes to this article on area bombing. See discussion on the talk page. While Churchill's role in the area bombing campaign is undeniable I felt your additions used excessive language and exaggerated figures. Discuss on the article's talk page if you wish. Kablammo 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) I read your reply on my talk page; I replied there, and suggest we discuss further on the article's talk page. Kablammo 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) You may be correct that some Churchill partisans will delete or attempt to delete anything critical of him. For my part I will not delete even-handed and properly-sourced criticism (and proper sourcing will remove its absence as a cause for deletion by others). I recognize that whether something is NPOV can itself be sometimes be argued, but we should at least engage and discuss to see if differences can be narrowed if not resolved. Kablammo 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be happy to work with you on it. I suspect that your knowledge exceeds mine on the air war but I'll help if I can. Other possible subjects: Churchill's impractical schemes (Catherine), propensity to try micromanage the tactics of battles from a distance of hundreds or thousands of miles (Graf Spee, Bismarck), and wishing to wage war by indirection (attempts to enlist support for invading the Balkans). Full disclosure: I think Churchill was a great leader, but he had his faults as a war leader and an even-handed article should discuss those too. The present article does not. Kablammo 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The change

Original

They were now dismayed by the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter.


Transformed into over time

Setbacks occurred with the presence of new forces, including fresh Siberian troops under General Zhukov, and by the onset of a particularly cold winter

The changes are very small but they make a huge difference Ironplay 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Watch out

For user Kurt Leyman he is a pro nazi person he edits alot of ww2 articles and tries to white wash nazi crimes and down play allied abilities, just look at his block log Ironplay 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon

I have removed your edits again, because they are clearly POV. Carl Logan 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your well meaning words and informing me of my own short comings, I am most gratefully. Your statements and actions clearly shows that you always try to be fair and neutral, never letting your personally opinions show in your work on wikipedia.

I will go through the things you reinserted and the things you reverted and give the reasons behind my edits.

  • The lead section: the section claiming Napoleon to be a military genius, by just his supporters or otherwise, is unnecessary because Napoleons military capabilities is included later.

The cruel tyrant section is entirely correct, he was thought by many to be one. But if we include that view of him, why should we not include others? One could write (and indeed have written) thousand of pages of opinions about Napoleon. So in my opinion we should no include any opinion about Napoleon and instead state facts. And to blame Napoleon for the two world wars is stretching it a bit.

I removed the duke of Wellington because the lead section should be short and summarize the article, and to be correct one should also include Blücher in beating Napoleon at Waterloo.

I sum up the battles by using just the name of the site of them because having the battle of xxxx every time becomes repetitive.

I removed the claim that he was a enlighten despot because I have found no serious argument for his inclusion among them.


  • I renamed the section The victorious general to General during the Revolutionary Wars because I think it’s a more neutral title. I also removed the reign of terror and replaced it with the French First Republic because you can not revolt against a period in history (not in the sense of the article at least).
  • I wrote general Kleber instead of marshal because Kleber was never a marshal, he died in Egypt before Napoleon crowned himself emperor and made some of his commanders Marshals of the Empire.
  • I removed the section about Kutusov because it was Barclay de Tolly who was behind the plan of avoiding battle with Napoleon (it is also stated earlier in the article). Many considered him incomptent for meeting Napoleon in the bloody battle of Borodino.
  • I shorten the section about waterloo for the reasons written above.
  • I moved up the birth and death category because I think they are the most important and should therefore be first.

I hope we can agree and make it a better article. Carl Logan 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wallie that I couldn't help your cause. I was over at Europe, and then school started...

its been kind of busy I don't know why. If you need any other help just ask. Oyo321 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  1. The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  2. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage.
  3. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
  4. The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
  5. TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd
04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Virus Removal

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Virus Removal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Virus removal. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Graham87 10:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My motive is to make the encyclopedia better and to not have it contain howto articles. It could be a redirect to something like Antivirus software, but this information doesn't belong in wikipedia. Graham87 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Like ... what? If you want to contest its deletion, you can always remove the prod tag and then it can be sent to AfD or redirected to a more appropriate, more NPOV (in terms of not suggesting software), and better article. Or you can improve on what's there and see if a wiki like wikibooks wants it. We're both free to do anything to the article at any time; the prod tag doesn't stifle any edits. Graham87 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it's an important topic, but WP:NOT an instruction manual for anything so shouldn't contain howto guides, which eventually have to violate neutral point of view by design. There is wikibooks:Windows XP for Beginners/Security and wikibooks:Basic Computer Security which discusses viruses and antivirus software; this is where the text in your article belongs. Graham87 10:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected it to antivirus software. Graham87 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't work for anyone - and most people searching for "virus removal" probably want either antivirus software or anti-spyware software. Why do you want your article to remain, and what are your problems with the antivirus companies and the antivirus software article? Graham87 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to buy anything - there are free antivirus and anti-spyware programs on the internet, and even some online scanners. Why don't you contribute incites to the wikibooks pages I mentioned above? I simply don't think an article on virus removal is necessary on wikipedia because wikipedia is not a howto guide. I've also moved the article to have the second word lower case per naming conventions. Graham87 11:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What was the name of the virus? I was also hit by a virus several years ago, and because of the nature of the virus, it was impossible to uninstall without sighted assistance - so I know how frustrating it can be! However, I don't think instructions like this are relevant for wikipedia. Graham87 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the be-all-and-end-all of everything, and we shouldn't make it seem like it is. Using google I got this link with instructions for which scanners to use in safe mode. Again, I don't think an article about your experiences about a particular virus belongs in wikipedia, and I still believe it should be a redirect. Graham87 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina

For some reason I was browsing Archive 1 in Katrina, and came across a particularly ignorant person who was calling Katrina a non-event.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was you. That was a real charming period in your life here. --Golbez 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me try a different tone. Thank you for changing your tone, but I do hope in the future you don't have to do that again. --Golbez 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Hilton

Wallie, dont you think the page could be cut down a little? I think that a lot of the stuff on her page could probably be kept to private websites and is un-encyclopedic. --NICK 6 October 2006

[edit] Paris Hilton 2

Wallie, dont you think the page could be cut down a little? I think that a lot of the stuff on her page could probably be kept to private websites and is un-encyclopedic. --NICK 6 October 2006

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.

Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The last AC meeting (full log)
  • The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  • There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
  • The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
  • In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
  • A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted!
  • Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello
20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Dessie fan site

Howdie. I've just been reading Desert Orchid, and there's a significant overlap between your original contribution and this fan site[see below]. Is this them copying you, or vice versa?

Btw, you may be interested to know that "Obituary:Desert Orchid" on the BBC Sport site also uses the overlapping material, so it's certainly spread far and wide. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know. We should be pleased when journalists pick up our work, but sometimes... But the Q with Desert Orchid remains: where did you get the material? Did you write it yourself? It was a long time ago, but you started the article as a single, long post with no structure, which is identical to this website (no really, I've put in the correct url this time...).
This is often a sign that an editor did the dreaded cut'n'paste copyvio, but although this was an early edit you seem like a pretty straight editor. So I thought I'd ask you rather than slapping a huge great tag on the article. But it's kinda important to resolve this, or we will indeed have to blank the article... Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of my suggestion

I would like your opinion about the notion that I was "spamming" you by leaving you a message on your Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Please comment, if you'd like, under my question for the folks at WikiProject Spam. Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. Was I helpful to you at all, or merely an annoyance? --JossBuckle Swami 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This edit...

... made me spit my coffee on my laptop with laughter. Nice work. Rockpocket 09:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you love everybody....

What about Yoshi? He's lovable too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.135.33 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC). Obviously,Paris Hilton. LOL

[edit] RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Wallie. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AAlonso publicitystill.jpg

Hello, Wallie. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:AAlonso publicitystill.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Wallie. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WW2 pic on your user page linked to Commons

I have taken the liberty of relinking the WW2 Franklin pic on your user page to the version on Commons, since I am trying to resolve redundancies. Hope this is ok with you! My regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I have noticed that you have mentioned this on RHaworth's page. He seems to be setting himself up as some sort of robocop. He tried the same with me too. Wallie 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like being overtechnical at best and Wikilawyering at worst. If it gets to an RFC or anything let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Mario Lanza songs

I have nominated Category:Mario Lanza songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and also Category:Sissel songs. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please get a sense of proportion. Having a category nominated for deletion is not equivalent to declaring war on you - it is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, not a personal attack. I have not used any administrative powers in this debate: anyone can nominate categories for merging, renaming or deletion. I explained my reasons at the debate. If you think the category should be kept, join in the debate, rather than criticize me or make unwarranted accusations about my personal prejudices. I'm not riding roughshod over anyone's views - someone else will decide which side has the better arguments. If the arguments against deletion are stronger, the category will stay.

I nominated the categories because I saw that someone else had nominated Category:Jussi Bjorling songs for rename, and someone made a good point about "songs by opera singer" not being a good idea. I found these and nominated them. If we had a category for everyone who recorded Nessun Dorma, for example, we'd have hundreds of additional categories for very little additional value. Regards, BencherliteTalk 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whistle register cat

Could you possibly not put opera singers in this category? It's not one used for opera singers and most of the time it's completely inaccurate anyway. I'd recommend not using it at all. Thanks for your cooperation. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Would you like to put a note about the use of this cat on Opera Project? That way other editors working on opera articles can see your views. BTW Welitsch was not a coloratura, she was a kind of Jugendlich Dramatischer Sopran.-- Kleinzach (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate it if you could leave that cat off all opera singers. Either that, or if you feel strongly about it, take it up with the Opera Project. Thanks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Showjumping horses

I have nominated Category:Showjumping horses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for renaming to Category:Show jumping horses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] advice concerning articles, categories, and catmore tags

You are a much more experienced WikiPedian than I, so this is a request for advice; I did some mucking around with the categories:

Category:Prima ballerina assolutas,
Category:Prima ballerinas, and
Category:Ballerinas among others.

In the course of which I added {{catmore}} to each category, created a redirect link from:

Prima ballerina assolutas (which did not exist in the plural)

to:

Prima ballerina assoluta etc.

And then removed Prima ballerina assoluta from Category:Prima ballerina assolutas feeling that its presence was redundant given that {{catmore}} causes the follwing to appear at the top of the category: The main article for this category is Prima ballerina assolutas.

While "a foolish consistency" may be "the hobgoblin of little minds", Ralph Waldo Emerson had nothing against consistency that was not foolish, and neither do I.

Currently all the entries in Category:Ballerinas and Category:Prima ballerinas are the names of dancers, as is the case with Category:Prima ballerina assolutas, with the sole exception of the article Prima ballerina assoluta.

If you feel it's important that Prima ballerina assoluta be in Category:Prima ballerina assolutas, I will do the same for Category:Prima ballerinas and Category:Ballerinas. If not I will instead remove Prima ballerina assoluta from Category:Prima ballerina assolutas (which will frankly be less work). Robert Greer (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Do you attend the ballet; if not, may I ask how you came upon a topic so recherchée as Prima ballerina assoluta?

[edit] Nijinsky and Plisetskaya

I am very jealous! Where was it you saw them?

We are in agreement about use of the singular, but I will probably leave it in the plural now that they're all set up that way.

It does seem to be the way that other categories of performers are set up; dancers, actors, etc. Robert Greer (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nijinsky

... was dancing down to 1919, so there must be a few people alive who saw him dance, though how many folks in their 90s are editing on Wikipedia is a good question; but Nureyev wasn't such a bad dancer either! I remain jealously yours, Robert Greer (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ondine

May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)