Welcome!
Hello, Dr who1975, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian {T C @} 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Pug3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pug3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah the list seemed pretty short to me (and still does). My opinion is shortened names such as Little Steven don't count, they're more like nicknames. Another example would be Cher, which is simply a shortened version of her full name Cherilyn LaPiere. So I didn't add her. However, I did add Ritchie Valens, which I felt was sufficiently different from Richard Valenzuela, not to mention his label specifically changed his name for marketing reasons. Even deeper in the gray area is my addition of Ace Frehley (born Paul Frehley) which could possibly qualify as a nickname, but since it was Ace instead of "Ace" I opted to add him.
One question I've been pondering is the name of GWAR members. To me, Oderus Urungus et al. are characters, in some cases played by different musicians over time. In fact, I think Dave Brockie may be just as well known by his birth name. I think I'll remove them.
Another curiosity is that both Puff Daddy and P Diddy appear on the list, but his current name, Diddy, doesn't. I was considering only categorizing his latest moniker, and for this reason would also remove The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, who has gone back to Prince and incidentally was born Prince Nelson.
So this is my long, boring answer to your question. Would you agree with my analysis? Hoof Hearted 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding changing last names only - I was a little unsure when I added Mel Brooks, and Natalie Portman. I'll admit it was a judgement call and certainly wouldn't object to removing their names. I'll agree with you about Oderus Urungus. My main argument was The Dave Brockie Experience which states his real name, but GWAR is a much more popular band. (BTW, are you a fan like me?) I agree with you 100% on Steagal - that was a new one to me. My concern with Diddy was only a technical one: the catergoy is titled "People known by pseudonyms", not "Pseudonyms used by people". Thus, in a sense, Sean Combs appears on a list of people several times. But I agree that the ridiculous nature of all the name changes are in the "spirit" of the list, and ultimately wouldn't object to their inclusion. You're absolutely right about The Artist..., past pseudonyms are certainly valid.
- As for nickname vs. pseudonym - I think this is a subjective debate with a lot of overlap between the two. I would agree with the nickname article that describes the term as a shortened or familiar form of someone's real name. (Matisyahu is the Hebrew name for his real name, Matthew). Whereas a pseudonym allows much more variation from someone's real name.
- My thinking is that people on this category should have a real article (not a redirect) for the pseudonym. However, there will always be exceptions (Spice Girls, The Artist...). This ensures notability and a genuine pseudonym. I violated my own rule with Mr. Lordi, and will probably remove him (unless you think it would be a good idea to list the Lordi guys too). I haven't had much experience with categories. I was thinking of adding some text at the top with "guidelines for inclusion" - do you know if that's frowned upon? Would you like to work together to develop the "official" guidelines?
- Hey, it's been great talking to you. Glad to know there are others out there who can be serious while having fun. Hoof Hearted 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed Guidelines for Inclusion
- It is best if the pseudonym is a wiki article (not a redirect).
- Try to include true pseudonyms rather than nicknames.
- The first name or surname should differ significantly from the real name.
- Quotation marks around a name usually indicate a nickname.
- In general, stage names and pen names are valid, character names are not. I think Ali G and Pee Wee Herman are good examples of character name exceptions.
- Former pseudonyms may be included.
- People who have had their names legally changed should not be included.
- The person should be relatively well known. I'm questioning the validity of Isambard Khroustalov, Melnyk, and Ray Zee among others.
--Hoof Hearted 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
coordinates on Template:Infobox Stadium
If I understand you correctly on your recent posts, the template you are looking for is Template:Coor title dms. PETCO Park has the template tag near the bottom of the page, next to the Template:MLB tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- A follow up: The coordinates on the Giants Stadium is currently appearing on the infobox, so I assume you did not refresh the cache on your web browser (by pressing F5 on most browsers). Secondly, some articles may use Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale, which also puts a similar listing of coordinates in the upper-right of the article, just below the horizontal rule running under the article's title. As for something being "disabled", I am not sure what you are exactly referring to. Best. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, after briefly looking at your edits on the stadium articles, and re-reading your posts again, I think it is just basically a misunderstanding which template does what, not the fault of any user adding or disabling something. Currently, Template:Coor dms, which you only used, does NOT put the coordinates at the top of the page. Templates like Template:Coor title dms and Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale do, which some of the stadium articles like PETCO Park use. Giants Stadium currently does not have a template that puts the coordinates at the top of the page. A good list of all the coordinate templates can be found at WP:GEO#Templates. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Coordinates
- Huh? I made a change to it but I reverted it back to your version... If something's wrong then it's probably from your version. --3bulletproof16 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Coordinate precision...
You have changed some stadium coordinates to be very precise, such as Coors Field to 39°45′21.14″N 104°59′39.02″W / 39.7558722°N 104.9941722°W. Even though the whole number seconds are plenty to still stay within ballpark 39°45′21″N 104°59′39″W / 39.75583°N 104.99417°W. Is there any reason for this precision, is this a citable coordinate with some reference? Otherwise, it seems a little overboard. --MattWright (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to undo them, was just curious the reason for it. Thanks for the response. --MattWright (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- How do you get the 50 yard line or pitcher's mound for closed roof stadiums? --MattWright (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:User Pug
Hi Dr who1975,
As part of the German userbox solution, would you be willing to move "Template:User Pug" to your userspace? If you are but aren't sure about the details, I can do it for you and let you know when the changes are made. Or, I can move it to my userspace, where most of the other pet boxes are located. The biggest difference you'll notice is it won't be listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets, which is in the process of being userfied. However, it still will be listed at the larger directory, User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Let me know what you think. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Go for it! No hurry.
Rfrisbietalk 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so a bit of a hurry. The original page is gone so I moved Pug to {{User:UBX/Pug2}}. You still can move it to your area when you have the time. You can see it at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets.
Rfrisbietalk 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. It's been a busy week.--Dr who1975 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, it's still there.
- Sorry. It's been a busy week.--Dr who1975 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Rfrisbietalk 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Go for it!
Rfrisbietalk 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Question
How did you know about Clifford Davis being involved in the 1954 U.S. Capitol Shooting incident? When my father asked a Capitol guard about this incident in 1980, he was shown the bullet hole in the ceiling (next to the great seal, it resulted from one of the shooters being wrestled to the floor while in the act of firing) and told that he was the first person to have asked about it in at least 10 years (presumably to that guide, at least). Rlquall 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Under the verifiability guidelines, we're really not supposed to use one Wikipedia article to verify another or as a source. In reality, nearly all active Wikipedians have done it at one time or another, so you certainly haven't offended me, but I was hoping that you maybe had an independent source with which I was unfamiliar. In any event, I thank you for getting back with me, especially so fast, and wish you happy editing! Rlquall 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
New User Box
FSU Helmet box File:FSU Helmet.png Noles1984 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
".... but have you been to the Bahamas!?" No but would like to spend some air-miles and go there one-day, thanks I added Dr.Who fan box from the 3rd doctor, mr_uu 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Supercentenarians.
Heh DrWho. I didn't even look at the date of birth and date of death of Thomas Peters. I just saw the 112 years 80 days part, no idea where that came from.
The thing is, Wikipedia had a Thomas Peters page and it got deleted, and it seems that the people who wrote the new Thomas Peters (supercentenarian) page were not the previous authors, so it seems that hid page became completely different and rewritten, and because it was deleted, there wasn't a way to revert to the previous article. But that's okay.
Me, Bart Versieck, and Robert Douglas Young (RYoung122) come from a group where they document all supercentenarians. The parent site is www.grg.org. Guinness World Records tend to validate the oldest person in the world cases only, so you won't really know who's the second oldest person in the world, since persay, the '70s. Anyways I don't know the specifics of Thomas Peters. Neal 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Supercentinarians I had to sift through your compaints to wikipedia management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.
First of all, if I make a mthematical error or a mistake on somebody's page. It's an error, that's what it is. Considering the less than thurough ways in which you've been updating pages (you didn't even try to fix the succession boxes) you don't have much room to complain to management. I looked back and realized I made a mistake with Thomas Peters death date. I guess you've never made a mistake in your life. Also, Thomas Peter's didn't have a page before I put it up so when it comes to him at least I made an attemp to bring more information to wikipedia. The mistake about Jeane Klement reaching 120 years 238 days on Oct 17 1995 (not Oct 4 1995) was a mistake I DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED MUSELF!!!! yet you felt the need to complain about it.
Secondly... nice teamwork. Thanks for taking me seriously. Here I am, willing to help organize the information you provided (because even I know that you are the expert in this and not me) and you spit in my face. I apreciate it. Maybe I'll send a letter to your superiors at Guinness since you feel so comfortable representing them in this fasion.
I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized
Mr Who, it looks to me like you're the one who's spitting in my face...and you make far more errors than I do. Let's start with your above message.
1. Misspelled 'supercentenarians' 2. Misspelled 'mathematical' 3. Misspelled 'thorough' 4. Misspelled 'Jeanne' 5. Misspelled 'Calment' 6. Misspelled 'Peters' 7. Misspelled 'attempt' 8. Misspelled 'appreciate' 9. Misspelled 'fashion' 10. Misspelled 'started' 11. Misspelled 'didn't' 12. Forgot the period
I don't think making threats to take this to higher-ups is appropriate or polite in any way or manner, considering you didn't even go to me first about any issue. And both Bart and Neal complained about your editing as well. So, why don't you talk to them first since they brought this to my attention.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
For your information, Wikipedia is NOT a 'job.' It's an unpaid VOLUNTEER service. If I lay out a framework and you finish it, great. If not, well, it's still not my 'job.' Wikipedia doesn't pay me anything.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it doesn;t matter now because you got your ass blocked.... now that's funny.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ahahahaha. Wow, I just realized this was my first talk-response. By the way, I noticed you noticed that Ryoung122 and Bart Versieck got blocks indefinite and definite. You also forgot User:Kitia. ;) Neal (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
Midget/Dwarf Actors
I added Tony Cox and Danny Woodburn to the category, but I'm leery of the "Midget" part. Aside from the controversy of the term, it seems somewhat redundant, akin to "Gay and Homosexual Actors". Would you mind if I changed the category to "Actors with Dwarfism"? And yes, Doctor Who is awesome. Jjacobsmeyer 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not redundant because the slash means either/or.
→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I should have been more exact in the header; the category as it is now reads "Midget and Dwarf Actors". I guess I wanted to save space. Plus, the Dwarfism article mentions the fact that the term "midget" usually applied only to those with pituitary dwarfism, a condition that has been greatly reduced in developed nations. There also is precedent for changing the name, based on the "People with Dwarfism" category. Jjacobsmeyer 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should change it but I'd like to discuss this more. Midget isn't always a pajorative term. The artical on Midget say's it's scientific. Plus it has always been my understanding that Midget and Dwarf are two different things. For insatnce, Gary Coleman does not appear to be considered a Dwarf but he is a little person and I would like the category to include him. I personally would not liek to call it "little people actors" so Midget and Dwarf actors sounds best. What say you?--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Not identical
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are not identical and the article specifically points this out. --Yamla 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Damn... they look identical.--Dr who1975 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Approved for AWB!
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Veteran politicians
Just wanted to let you know I saw your reply here but I reverted it because the discussion is closed and should not be changed. Since the categories have been deleted, I guess there's not much point in beating a dead horse anyway. I just wanted to let you know it didn't go unnoticed, and thank you for taking the time to write it. Kafziel Talk 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
I just wanted to say thanks again for the Barnstar of Diligence. Since a few of us were going back and forth with the order, and since it all was rather confusing, I just wanted to get a definitive say on the matter. Cheers! Bridger 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, I'm the real Dr Who ! ;) --Dr. Who 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm not communist. I'm extreme right, I'd say almost nazi. I'm in the mood of The Wall. Why Pinko? Cos I'm the chief of Floydians here? Maybe.... Anyway, I'm a fan of John Zorn and Jason Kay/Jamiroquai, not only of Kraftwerk and similar German electro-stuff, in the case you are wondering. Doktor is german.--Dr. Who 04:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- yes, I read your userpage. I do not "hate Jews", I do not hate anybody, I love differences, and I respect everyone. cheers, I'm going to bed. Nice to meet you.Dr. Who 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm not communist. I'm extreme right, I'd say almost nazi. I'm in the mood of The Wall. Why Pinko? Cos I'm the chief of Floydians here? Maybe.... Anyway, I'm a fan of John Zorn and Jason Kay/Jamiroquai, not only of Kraftwerk and similar German electro-stuff, in the case you are wondering. Doktor is german.--Dr. Who 04:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"See Also" links on Goth subculture
If you think more "See Also" links are relevant to Goth subculture, please contribute to the discussion on the talk page. --Stormie 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: 74.69.147.123 Vandalism
Hi Dr, see WP:AIV. I reported this one already.--Pethr 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome, however ip wasn't blocked since the edits were old (I haven't noticed). Anyway see WP:UTM for custom warnings and remember WP:AIV for vandal reporting. Regards.--Pethr 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, blocking is usually used as a last resort to stop people who are vandalizing, since he has stoped yesterday there is not really reason to block him for 31 hours for example because he's not here anyway. He will be blocked once he vandalize article again.--Pethr 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Earliest?
You've created a bunch of "earliest" politicians pages. What is an Earliest serving US senator, for example? That page lists "2005 - present - George M. Leader - Pennsylvania". Are you saying Pennsylvania had no senator before 2005? eaolson 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I now notice the redirect. Again, what do you mean by "earliest"? The word makes no sense in the context you are using it. It appears to be a ranking of senators by age and/or senority, but more than one senator can not be the "oldest," unless they are the same age. eaolson 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
AIV Report
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! alphachimp 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why on Earth did you write that on this user's userpage? J Milburn 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note and a reminder... he spoofed his IP into that name to hide the vandalism he;d done. I reported the vandalism, but nobody put a warning anywhere on his user page nor his IP address page.--Dr who1975 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Naming all of the "United States Senators by seniority" pages
Hi Dro who,
I noticed you've been creating these Senator by seniority pages, but I believe you are using an incorrect naming convention for all of the titles. There should be a space between the word "seniority" and the first opening parenthesis, and there should be a space after a comma dividing dates. For example:
"United States Senators by seniority(1969,1970)" should actually be "United States Senators by seniority (1969, 1970)"
Please use the correct naming scheme when creating new articles, as it's already going to be a pain for me to go move the existing articles.
Also, please add them to the cateogry Category:United States Senators by seniority instead of Category:United States Senate.
Thanks, --CapitalR 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with CapitalR...those pages need to be moved to have a space between the years. It is improper to have no space inbetween them as you have named them, Metros232 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I made those change last week. Please try to check things before commenting on them.--Dr who1975 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, just got your message on my talk page about this. I think Metros232 was referring to adding a space in each of the page titles between the years. For example "United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970)" should be "United States Senators by seniority (1969, 1970)". Notice the space between "1969," and "1970". --CapitalR 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is precisely what I mean. Metros232 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, just got your message on my talk page about this. I think Metros232 was referring to adding a space in each of the page titles between the years. For example "United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970)" should be "United States Senators by seniority (1969, 1970)". Notice the space between "1969," and "1970". --CapitalR 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I made those change last week. Please try to check things before commenting on them.--Dr who1975 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just relaized something.... I already made the changes CapitalR suggested a week ago! Did you actually look at the pages before you commented? I realize I may be a little hypocritical here but... please try to check things before commenting on them. Incidentally I admitted to Quadpus that I made a mistake.--Dr who1975 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- What? No you didn't. There's definitely no space here: United States Senators by seniority (1963,1964), United States Senators by seniority (1967,1968), United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970). Metros232 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes... but there was a space between "seniority" and "(" which I (incorecty) thought he was talking about... in any event. 've taken care of it now.--Dr who1975 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- What? No you didn't. There's definitely no space here: United States Senators by seniority (1963,1964), United States Senators by seniority (1967,1968), United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970). Metros232 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just noticed you're working on these. My question is, why aren't you using the numbered Congress to which the seniority applies? United States Senators by seniority (101st Congress). --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- While the divisions are based on the congressional sessions. I think having the years in the title makes the articles more personable and accdessable to lay person. I probably need to mention the session in the opening text of the articles.--Dr who1975 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um. But nobody refers to Congresses that way, nor do we -- see Category:110th_United_States_Congress. It really makes more sense to be consistent with not just Wikipedia but with Congress itself, which certainly doesn't use this sort of notation. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- While the divisions are based on the congressional sessions. I think having the years in the title makes the articles more personable and accdessable to lay person. I probably need to mention the session in the opening text of the articles.--Dr who1975 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks!
Thank you for the nice barnstar barnstar! Herostratus 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Census page ratings
Hi Dr. Who, There isn't any type of special process you need to go through before adding an article to the US project and rating it. If someone disagrees with your assessment, we can discuss that- though I doubt that will happen. Right now we are just trying to get all the articles labeled and rated, so go ahead and classify the census articles- I would appreciate your help. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo nui
Whoops. Thanks for catching this. I guess I got a little ahead of myself. --Ali'i 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your Congressional proposal
I care ... I don't have any strong improvements to suggest to your proposal, which is why I didn't say anything, but I certainly care about the project in general and your idea in particular. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replied on the impeachment movement cfd,
Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding or not addressing your concerns. — coelacan — 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Mel Gibson edit
Hey there! I thought your recent edit to Mel Gibson was a clear POV-push, but then I noticed you are an established and serious editor, so that caught me by surprise. If you disagree with my revert, please let me know so we can come to a consensus. Actually, I probably would have contacted you pre-revert if I'd looked at your prior contribs first, heh... Anyway, let me know if you think my revert was a mistake and we can talk about it. Thanks! --Jaysweet 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I sympathize with your point, but I think because of WP:BLP, it is important that the WP article not actually say Gibson is an anti-Semite. That is a very serious charge, and in my opinion it is best to leave it up to readers to decide for themselves.
- I would be interested if you can find an example of another Wikipedia article that specifically says the person is anti-Semitic, to compare and contrast. I think the threshold for Wikipedia to make that accusation would have to be extremely high... --Jaysweet 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I see your point now... right, one can debate whether spouting anti-Semitic comments during a DUI arrest really makes one an anti-Semite, but it's awfully hard to argue that the statement "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" is not an anti-Semitic statement. heh.... so yeah, I think you do have a point.
- I don't like "shows signs of anti-Semitism," because that starts to border on labeling the man, which we have to be careful not to do because of BLP. Maybe in the second paragraph, the one specifically regarding the DUI arrest, the text could be made a little stronger, e.g. "he was abusive to the arresting officers and made a series of anti-Semitic statements, including..."
- Be careful though. I dunno if you've been following this article or not, but there's been a lot of discussion about this on the Talk page. :D I wouldn't make any changes regarding the anti-Semitism accusations without justifying yourself there first. --Jaysweet 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
re:Why Can't AT40 have a succession Box?
Hi there. The reason I removed AT40 succession boxes is because right now I am questioning a few articles that are attributing number-ones to AT40. American Top 40 is just the name of a radio program... for many years the show's data was derived from Billboard magazine, and currently (I believe), the data comes from Mediabase. I'm in a discussion right now to have some articles renamed to properly credit the organization that actually compiles the charts and not the radio show that counts them down. If anything, the succession boxes should probably say "Mediabase number-one single", not "AT40 number-one single". I just wanted to get the naming cleared up first before a bunch of succession boxes got placed all over in song articles. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, if you'd like: Talk:List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2007. - eo 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify whant is meant by Earliest serving US governor? Does it mean at each point of time the living governor who served earlier than any of the other living people who served as governor? RJFJR 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comment
Please do not insult my intelligence, maturity, and make derogatory other names for my ideas as you did in this diff. If you think that it is a bad idea, please just say so instead of getting personal.
Note: I was being completely serious about this as an award, albeit maybe it would be better suited as PUA than a barnstar. ~Steptrip 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Executive Order 10999, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}}
to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hatch68 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't keep placeholder pages such as the above or Executive Order 11000. Now you have the order numbers here on your talk page. NawlinWiki 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So Hatch 68 lied to me when he said he's leave it up for 5 days. How come you guys didn;t notice Senate Bill 1873?--Dr who1975 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
re: Succession boxes
You said you Oppose getting rid of the rule preventing succession boxes on fiction characters but then you're comments seem to support getting rid of the rule. I think you meant to say support, you may want to go edit your post.--Dr who1975 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you left your computer. I took care of it for you. Sorry if I stepped on your toes here. I agree with all your points about succession boxes.--Dr who1975 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh.. ok. I think I understand your position now. Since you were the one removing the boxes, I assumed you were against the boxes being in the articles. But I see now that you were supporting what's currently at WP:MOS. I was figuring that since succession boxes are virtually everywhere, they was a consensus for them. Hopefully this issue will get worked out in discussion. (And thanks for fixing my !vote. :) --Fang Aili talk 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. Got your response. I have a question... I keep seeing thie term "cruft" or "fancruft", I'm fairly familiar with wht cruft means ut can you give me a specific or hypothetical example where this has come up in an argument?--Dr who1975 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's Joey's apartment from today's AfD. The first !vote describes fancruft pretty well: "pointless regurgitation of minutae" that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Fang Aili talk 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. Got your response. I have a question... I keep seeing thie term "cruft" or "fancruft", I'm fairly familiar with wht cruft means ut can you give me a specific or hypothetical example where this has come up in an argument?--Dr who1975 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh.. ok. I think I understand your position now. Since you were the one removing the boxes, I assumed you were against the boxes being in the articles. But I see now that you were supporting what's currently at WP:MOS. I was figuring that since succession boxes are virtually everywhere, they was a consensus for them. Hopefully this issue will get worked out in discussion. (And thanks for fixing my !vote. :) --Fang Aili talk 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Quadpus... I thougth maybe these two edits were a mistake on your part when we were debating the Impeach G.W. Bush thing but I see now you have it in for me no matter what I do. This is basically an aesthetic change that you reverted (twice!). Beyond that, using the one to two succession box in this manner is something that is in use on a bunch of pages (Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, etc.). It makes the succession box less clunky looking and less repetative. Furthermore, I cannot find a rule that prohibits them from being used this way. In fact, others have reverted your edits on this without my intervention.--Dr who1975 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I reverted those changes because I believed them to be a misuse of the 2-to-1, 1-to-2, etc, succession boxes. It might be less repetitive, but it is also makes it less clear. I don't wish to go around making mass changes the way you are doing though, unless there is a consensus, which I might try to build if I have time. Quadpus 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You make mass changes without concensus all the time. This is practically an example of it.--Dr who1975 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Quadpus 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You make mass changes without concensus all the time. This is practically an example of it.--Dr who1975 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Compromist on succession boxes
I agree there should be a compromise, we're just not supposed to apply a rule in order to show that is broken. You removed the SBs with a summary that includes "vote here." That may be effective, but it goes against WP:POINT. - Peregrine Fisher 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think WP:POINT cna sometimes be misused to stifle debate (not that I would change [[{WP:POINT]]), however, I do want to see an end to this thing. I will not remove any more succession boxes, give me a few hour to see if there is more debate and I will take care of this.--Dr who1975 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. No one bit on my earlier comment, but maybe we can add optional fields to the nav boxes for succession info. - Peregrine Fisher 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Succession boxes and fancruft
There's this example from the history of Sauron: [1]. "Dark Lord"? Notice how it includes a character who was never more than a name in an unpublished work that never got past its first chapter, and who wasn't a "Dark Lord" on the same scale as either Morgoth or Sauron. "Bearer of the Great Ring" is equally silly. It was as bad as it ever got before you removed the boxes entirely: [2]. A succession box for "Lord of Mordor" when there was only ever one of them? "Lord of Dol Guldur" where there was only ever two of them, and the second one was one of his Nazgûl? Ridiculous.
Have a look at Denethor, and the Stewards of Gondor succession box. It looks valid at first glance, but if you click back you find these extremely brief articles that are nothing but wordier versions of what you find in "The Tale of Years" in the Appendices to Lord of the Rings. Of that entire line, perhaps only 5 of them deserve an article. The others simply aren't worth mentioning. Then there are the array of succession boxes under Aragorn, which is the specific case I had in mind in one of my comments. For most of the articles you can follow, for example, under "Chieftain of the Northern Dunedain" there is literally nothing to say about the person, and the fanboy editors who wrote the articles are forced to mention contemporaneous events in order to pad them out. I don't know what's more annoying: That the articles exist at all, or that I'm OCD enough to fix errors in the damn boxes even as I'm complaining about them. (Someone doesn't understand what is meant by "cadet branch".) The others are all like it.
Neither of Galadriel's succession boxes makes any sense. "Lady of Eregion" is based on a version of her history that may or may not be canonical; in fact Tolkien seems to have never settled on the "right" answer here. "Lady of Lorien" is just as bad -- and the middle occupant of that "lineage" has no succession box at all, which renders the exercise moot. The brief articles for the other two are obviously not extensive enough to stand alone, and cannot be expanded because they already tell everything known about them.
I could go on, if you like. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about "Succession boxes for fictional characters" ,started by your petission, has been ongoing for a month. No one has contributed in days. Shouldn't it be concluded eventually and the results having some actual effects? User:Dimadick
Re: Barnstarman
Yeah, I was on a Wikibreak during Spring Break, but I posted there as soon as I got your message. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 14:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Happy Chandler
Thank you for your additions to Happy Chandler. Although I have been slacking of late, I had been working on taking this article to GA status. I have no doubt that your edits about Chandler being the most senior senator and last senator from the 30's are true, but if you have a source to cite for this information, would you please include it? It will make my job easier when I get back around to nominating it for GA. Thanks. Acdixon 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying about Chandler. Wonder if that's acceptable in lieu of a cite for GA? Acdixon 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your offer to help. The main problem I'm running into is that most of the sources I have deal with Chandler politically, but he was also part of some noteworthy incidents as commissioner of baseball, including overseeing its integration, suspending Dodgers manager Leo Durocher, and suspending players who went to the Mexican League. I doubt the article will ever (or probably should ever) pass GA or FA unless I can expand the baseball commissioner section. If you are a baseball fan – or you know one – who might be able to expand this section, I could use the help in that area. Other than that, I've got a business trip coming up where I'll have some down time, and I plan to expand the section regarding Chandler's second term as governor and later political life.
- I think I'll post the citation question to the village pump. Acdixon 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Apparently, at least one user thinks this requires a source. See the discussion. If you run across a valid cite, please add it. Otherwise, I'll keep looking. Acdixon 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa! You've totally got the wrong impression here. I was just hoping you knew where to find a cite for the info so it wouldn't get challenged in a GA review. It's usually easier for the author of an edit to add the source if they have it. That's all I was asking. I know it was a good faith edit, and I certainly am not trying to remove it. On the contrary, I'm trying to keep it. I'll work on finding the cite myself, but the only reason I care is so it might be able to pass GA one day.
- In answer to your question, I've gotten down to the baseball section with my cleanup, and yes, I've got a lot more to do. I haven't worked on it a lot lately, but as I said, I'm planning to shortly. Please don't think me antagonistic. Acdixon 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to have cleared up this situation with you. I do appreciate your work and how tedious it can be (kind of like when I was assigning class ratings to WikiProject Kentucky articles), and I certainly hope it won't be removed. I'll continue to search for ways to cite it to the satisfaction of Wikipedia standards. I noticed the articles you mentioned, and it seems to me that sourcing them and sourcing their assertions in other articles (as with Chandler) are almost one in the same.
- BTW, you mentioned "compilation" under original research, but the official policy resides at WP:OR, and makes no mention of compilations. Nevertheless, your contention makes sense to me, so I'll seek some more advice from more experienced editors. Acdixon 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your concern. At least one editor at the VP agrees with the both of us that linking to the .gov site you mention above is at least arguably a valid citation. I would have to think an editor would be extremely anal to remove such information since, despite guidelines, probably 90-95% of Wikipedia remains uncited. As far as an offer of help, I'd appreciate anything that improves the article, especially from the baseball section down. I'll also try to remember to let you know when I put it up for GA. I doubt it'll ever pass FA until I get some more images. Acdixon 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
succession boxes
I was presuming the debate was regarding succession boxes in the context of 'writing about fiction'. What do you think isn't clear? In part, the debate discusses the possibility of baning some boxes, but retaining others, and writing a new rule accordingly. If someone had a sensible rule which I felt couldnt be abused to remove useful boxes, I might support it, but I am not convinced that is possible. Sandpiper 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Master
Hi there. Cheers for this - all in the spirit of WP! Sorry I boobed on Utopia, you are of course quite correct. I love it when an article comes together! Peeper 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Reversions
I'm sure you're aware of the three revert rule and would caution you agasint breaching it in the Freemasonry article. ALR 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Moreover, linking to a book title isn't really using the source. Who knows what the content is? for example, Mackey's debunking of the Taxil hoax was called Devil Worship in France and the content had, AFAIK, very little to do with the title of the book. Believe it or not, though, the link to the verifiability guidelines is WP:Verifiability, and I'm a little concerned that you had to ask someone else to find this for you. MSJapan 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- As regards hostility, you made the mistake of forcing an edit on no grounds whatsoever and without discussion, when you apparently didn't even know the ground rules for editing. I'll add that POV vandals do the same thing on articles, and thus it's very hard to AGF in that instance. Basically, you could have handled that a lot better than you did, and the resultant attitudes towards you are the direct consequence of your actions. MSJapan 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the boldness of my update upset you. That was not my intention. However, seeing as how you have now unapologetically admitted hostility toward me. Please do not post here again.--Dr who1975 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- An admittance of hostility does not mean they should never post hear again, it just means they should try to be a little nicer :). We could all be a little nicer, however I understand MSJapans frustration. It appears as though your additions were good faith, however the article is a highly controversial article. In these articles while boldness is often needed, caution is more often appropraite to prevent incitation of edit wars, and other undesirable outcomes. The most accepted way to prevent such actions is to post and discuss propsoed controversial changes on the articles talk page before adding them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, you asked "what's with the hostility" - your usage, not mine, and there's no admission on my part of anything. Moreover, as you've pointed out a few times on your talk page and other places, you seem to be more inmtersted in getting a "secret word" into the areticle rather than figuring out if there was any merit to the usage first. MSJapan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not too immersed, I was trying to discuss it properly but nobody wanted to. I'm done.--Dr who1975 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, you asked "what's with the hostility" - your usage, not mine, and there's no admission on my part of anything. Moreover, as you've pointed out a few times on your talk page and other places, you seem to be more inmtersted in getting a "secret word" into the areticle rather than figuring out if there was any merit to the usage first. MSJapan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the boldness of my update upset you. That was not my intention. However, seeing as how you have now unapologetically admitted hostility toward me. Please do not post here again.--Dr who1975 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- As regards hostility, you made the mistake of forcing an edit on no grounds whatsoever and without discussion, when you apparently didn't even know the ground rules for editing. I'll add that POV vandals do the same thing on articles, and thus it's very hard to AGF in that instance. Basically, you could have handled that a lot better than you did, and the resultant attitudes towards you are the direct consequence of your actions. MSJapan 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Freemasonry
You are linking to a book for sale at amazon.com. That in no ways counts as an appropriate reference, and would appear to be cicrumventing WP:EL by including a link to a for sale item in the citations section rather than the external links section. That is why I believe ALR's decision to eb appropriate for removing it. Thank you for reverting yourself after realisation of the three revert rule. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a better explanation of why what you added would not seem appropriate from my point of view. There are many, more recent and reliable sources, that state that much of masonic ritualistic information differs between grand lodges, and types of freemasonry. This, being contrasted to an old document from the 1700's purporting to be masonic information is hardly reliable, especially with the changes across freemasonry across districts and grand lodges since the orignial was written. In these situations, more recent citations should be used as opposed to old versions (1700's) of which much has changed. Our goal is accuracy for this project, and citing innaccurate information will only go to discredit/hurt this project more.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan
here you say that MS Japan has been hostile to you and admitted it and therefore his comments are not welcome. Wikipedia is a community of collaboration, and such statements do not help this project. If MSJapan has violated one of wikipedias policies, you are welcome to request the assistance of me or another adminsitrator at administrators notieboard/incidents. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two things. 1. It was a request. 2. Guidleines are not rules and are therefore more controversial to use as a basis for complaint on administrators notieboard/incidents. I do think he broke WP:CIVIL but that is a guidline. My preffered outcome would be if MSJapan simply took me seriously as somebody with good faith but he does not seem to be interested in doing that.--Dr who1975 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my apologies if he has not done that. If you feel he continues, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will kindly request that he assume good faith. The article on freemasonry as I have stated before is often targeted by many bad faith edits, and it becomes frustrating and often monotonous to continue to keep this article up. It actually used to be a featured article, a status which it no longer has. Thanks for being civil and understanding as we try to work through this, to me that is the MOST important thing anybody can do on this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my apologies if he has not done that. If you feel he continues, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will kindly request that he assume good faith. The article on freemasonry as I have stated before is often targeted by many bad faith edits, and it becomes frustrating and often monotonous to continue to keep this article up. It actually used to be a featured article, a status which it no longer has. Thanks for being civil and understanding as we try to work through this, to me that is the MOST important thing anybody can do on this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability
WP:V and WP:CITE should do for starters. Have fun!--Vidkun 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith
Your recent spree has me to beleive that your additions were truly in bad faith. I dont care what you post around, however you have lost my trust in this project. Please do not disrupt this project to make a point thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Chris... I thought your issue was with citing it? You're issue with me posting the word on a talk page implies bad faith on your part. (i.e. you were not honest when you said your issue was with citing it) In any event I'm done.--Dr who1975 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I dont care if you post it on the mediation page. I really dont care, I however would rather your attempts at making a point not be on my talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- and what point was I trying to make?--Dr who1975 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is obvious that you believe there to be a conspiracy to hide information here. Information that has been pubslished. It is not possible to prevent information from going out, it is however possible to maintain the highest standards for our articles. Your attempts at throwing words and inform,ation around appear to me to be an attempt to disrupt those editors associated with this article and cause them discomfort for disagreeing with your addition. The fact is, the information is available , that still however does not make it encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nah... I'm done. I never said any of that. --Dr who1975 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is obvious that you believe there to be a conspiracy to hide information here. Information that has been pubslished. It is not possible to prevent information from going out, it is however possible to maintain the highest standards for our articles. Your attempts at throwing words and inform,ation around appear to me to be an attempt to disrupt those editors associated with this article and cause them discomfort for disagreeing with your addition. The fact is, the information is available , that still however does not make it encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- and what point was I trying to make?--Dr who1975 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I dont care if you post it on the mediation page. I really dont care, I however would rather your attempts at making a point not be on my talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Muslim Freemasons
Islam is generally against Freemasonry, and I believe it is banned in most Muslim countries. But, as I said, since the only requirement regarding God in Freemasonry is that you believe in a supreme being, Muslims are free to become Masons, and there certainly are some. That said, it is rare. As for a "Muslim Freemason group", there is only one Freemasonry, to which all men who are believers in a supreme being and who are of good character, sound judgement, strict morals, free by birth and of mature age are free to join. There are several "appendant bodies" which one must be a Mason to join, but these are not considered Freemasonry proper. Many of these take aspects of certain religions or cultures, and incorporate them. However, no one would consider these groups to be connected in any way with the religions they take terms or symbolism from. The Shriners in fact include Muslim symbolism. For instance, where Masons meet as a Lodge, Shriners meet as a Mosque. But, of course, as I said, this is really nothing to do with Islam. Another appendant body (a much smaller one) is called the Order of Quetzalcoatl which takes imagery from Aztec religion. But again, this should not be considered to have anything to do with Aztec religion itself.
I wrote the above before reading your second message, so let me clarify. Aside from the York Rite, which requires one to be a Christian, there are no sub-faith groups of Freemasonry, nor are any of the appendant bodies actually considered to be part of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is not a religion, and it does not have any bodies "organized by religions" as you put it. It is not connected to any church, or any other religious group by any formal (or even informal) ties. Even the York Rite requirement of being a Christian is somewhat vague, and mostly historical (some have even claimed that one only need to profess to "protect Christianity" and not actually believe in it, and that is enough—although that is not likely to be a commonly-held understanding of the requirement). Hope that helps. Lexicon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
just to let you know
I was checking out a WP:AN3RR report and declined to block because you reverted yourself. One of your edit summaries gave me the impression that you thought you could revert different people up to 3 times each. Actually, the rule applies to any three reverts on a page during 24 hours. So if three different people make three completely different edits, and you revert each, then that's the limit; if you revert one more you'll be blocked, even if it's yet another completely different revert. Anyway, if you're not satisfied with the discussion on the article talk page, consider dispute resolution. Later, ··coelacan 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Freemasonry
I am polling all of the named members of this Mediation Request. From a review of your discussion on the Mediation page it sounds as if the dispute has been resolved prior to mediation, is this a safe assumption? (Note: Please respond here, I'll be watching.) - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_24#Template:Fb-spoiler
The rule is that articles are eligible for deletion once 7 days has passed. User:Zorglbot automatically moves those sections from current to old. The debates can then be closed. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are problems with this image:
- it's a duplicate of Image:SoundOfDrums.png
- it's obviously just a picture of John Simm grinning at the camera
The second point is important. A free picture of John Simm grinning could be obtained. To say that this is "Mr Saxon" is simply to state that he's a fictional character. This is just John Simm grinning at the camera so it cannot conform to the non-free content criteria. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Saxon and Mr. Hand
In response to your comment on my talk page: Fair enough. I saw the discussion and got interested enough to get involved. I'm simply not convinced that the image of an actor is a sufficient replacement for an image of a character. Based on other discussions I've seen, I think the jury is still out. It would be nice to see a policy on this (and several other "gray area" fair use questions).
As for "Mister Hand" I get that moniker from Dark City. It's also a character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. -- MisterHand 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You have apparently taken great issue with me editing this article. At least that is the impression I get considering your edit summaries following my edits. First of all, assume good faith. If I or anyone else missed something, just fix the problems. Past that, my deepest apologies for not fixing the link to the sub heading as it didn't occur to me. Although, also note that had it been done right the first time, I wouldn't have to correct it, but you don't see me putting that in my edit summary do you? As for your mocking me with my own edit summary regarding genre, I didn't put Pop punk there. I simply removed the addition of "Emocore" or "Emo" from the previous edit and correct a capitalization issue that I noticed while there. Regardless, this band (as much as I love them) is a pain in the ass when it comes to what genre they are. See the article talk page for details. Regards, LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thursdays
I am sorry I offended you. I thought you were on a delete rampage and thought 'who cares' was a bizarre edit summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Harrison (talk • contribs)
- Thanks.--Dr who1975 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh.
I dunno, I don't usually respond to trolls, so apparently I accurately pegged you as one.
All I did was block someone; a misconfigured squid cache server did the rest. The main site didn't realize that server was a cache server, so it was treating its cache edits as coming from users, rather than the internal system. When I blocked someone, the IP of the cache server showed up on auto-block - and everyone whose edits were being processed by that server was autoblocked.
Of course, you could have checked the noticeboards, or asked a tech person, since I'm not entirely sure my explanation is accurate. But if you just want to sling insults at someone who hasn't really been working on wikipedia heavily since you asked that question, go for it. --Golbez 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- You did not merely express frustration, you insulted my work here. An apology will not be forthcoming. I don't mind people asking questions about an action I made, which by the way was not a mistake; I do mind them getting huffy when I don't respond, even though my activity on Wikipedia has been drastically reduced in the time period that you asked the question. You seem to have a problem with me personally, though I don't recall ever interacting with you specifically. I did not make a mistake; I made a valid block, and the Mediawiki software suffered from a configuration issue that caused vast amounts of people to be autoblocked. At least two other admins got hit with the same issue.
- If you have a problem with me, take it to WP:RFC please. And as for your request for an explanation, I suggest you look three paragraphs up. --Golbez 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was not the insult; saying how "administrator-like" it was of me to not respond to you in a timely fashion was. There's a long line between 'ignoring' and 'not answered yet'; the world does not revolve around you. So, you got your explanation (which apparently you haven't seen yet) and I explained what I found insulting; it wasn't your question, it was your snark after 3 days. You got your explanation, we traded barbs, and you tried to get me de-adminned because I called you a name; can we move on with our lives now? --Golbez 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Golbez
Hi Dr who1975. I do apologise for barging in, but I wanted to suggest that you leave Golbez alone. He has explained what happened (there was a technical glitch which was nothing to do with him) and I think if you have any lingering bad feeling about it you should either take the matter forward in another forum or else (preferably) let go of it and move on. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Pop punk started in 1970s, not 1990s
The pop punk genre started in the 1970s, not the 1990s. True, it's not the same sound in many cases, but that's pretty much the situation with any music genre; it evolves over time. Spylab 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Gob's myspace lists the genre first as "pop punk". That a good enough reference?- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjnelson (talk • contribs)
- There is no reference in the pop punk article specifically proving when the term pop punk was first used, but it has said for a long time that the term has been used at least retroactively to describe 1970s bands that played a mix of pop music and punk rock. I have a hunch that the term pop punk was actually used by some writers in the 1970s, but even if the term wasn't widely used at that time, that does not negate the fact that some 1970s bands are now considered pop punk. See the freakbeat and northern soul articles for other music genres that were labelled retroactively. Spylab 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding Fall Out Boy, many people do consider them pop punk, and they are even mentioned in the history section of the pop punk article. However, I don't know enough (or care enough) about that band to wade into that debate. Spylab 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering the band makes the myspace themselves, I'd say it's a fine reference. You're just trying to be difficult.Chris Nelson 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whether some people feel insulted that bands such as Buzzcocks, Ramones, or The Jam are labeled pop punk is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those bands played (and in the case of Buzzcocks, still play) music that definitely fits the description of pop punk. I don't know much about Tenpole Tudor, and that article has not attracted my attention. The Damned started out as garage rock-style hard punk, went through a goth stage and then combined both styles. I don't think they have played enough pop music-influenced punk to be labelled pop punk. Everything I've heard from Siouxsie & the Banshees and Bauhaus seems to fit under punk(ish), new wave and goth. The question "Where does punk end and pop punk begin?" is a good one, and applies to almost every genre in the history of music. However, pop punk definitely started much earlier than the worldwide chart-topping hits of the 1990s by California bands. Spylab 02:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Succession box two and one and one to one and three, by Fuzzy510, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Succession box two and one and one to one and three is a test page.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Succession box two and one and one to one and three, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Succession box two and one and one to one and three itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Replied. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who spoiler
Hi. Thanks for posting the report on AIV, but when I looked at the contributions of the reported user I wasn't exactly sure why it was a spolier (I don't watch it myself). I wonder if you could explain to me exactly why it is a spoiler and then I will be happy to take whatever action is required (including blocking). Cheers TigerShark 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Paul McGann
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Instead of "series lead" I should've written "television lead". Mark H Wilkinson 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Richard Hurndall
Woops! Didn't see you'd said anything. I always just click "recent changes". Heh. Sorry.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
transferred from the Dr Who WP talk page
I'm just a dumb American so I had no where else to turn but to you guys for help. I have heard that Edward Tudor-Pole (who was never in Doctor Who... sorry) is related to the Tudor royal family. Obviously this is either an indirect relation (i.e. the Pole Family changed it's name to Tudor-Pole after some guy married a Tudor cousin) or the relation is through a bastard child. I can't find a citable source on this in google. Clearly, there seems to be a Tudor Pole family that is related to Henry VIII ( regardless of whether Ed is one of those Tudor-Poles or not) but I can't prove that either. Can anyone give me any help with this. Thanks.--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- God knows how you ended up here, but never mind! Ed, I believe, only claimed a relationship to the Tudor Poles (or it was claimed for him) - no doubt to jazz up his profile. This was probably while he was running round in Armour in the "Swords of a Thousand Men" video. This was 1981 though and I (stupidly) never kept my back copies of Smash Hits. Totnesmartin 09:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hold on
There is indeed objection to your proposed merge, particularly the most recent two comments. Please wait until there's some sort of consensus on what to do before going ahead with a change as drastic as this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Expaling myself
Taking the tags off of the article does not "end the discussion" by any means :)! It just takes the tags off the article. Merging is impossible - it's not an option, you won't achieve it (overly large article + overly large article + overly large article = disaster). So I removed the merge tags. That's all. Discussions about the future of categories and articles can happen on WikiProject page without necessary tagging, and casual editors (outside the project) are not going to have enough understanding of Wikipedia functions to be useful in the discussion at all.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:MisterSaxon.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MisterSaxon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Overuling
Regarding the doctor who lists merge discussion. I'm well aware nobody overules anyone else... please don't take my comments out of context.--Dr who1975 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then please refrain from using terminology such as "overule." What you did was reverting it. This may seem like quibbling, but it seems to me that saying you "overuled" someone else is unnecessarily inflammatory. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apreciate your advice... I didn't mean it in an inflamatory way. Please assume good faith.--Dr who1975 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
List of Oldest Members of House of Representatives
Sorry for delay in Response-health reasons. I have looked at your body of work on wikipedia. Find it interesting as well. Would like some pointer on the pages I have created on website.
--Thomas 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your Questions
1. I read it on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha. For instance, here's Daphne Ashbrook's page (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Daphne_Ashbrook)
2. I'm sorry to tell you that I can't help with Edward Tudor-Pole. To be honest, I never even heard of him until I read your message. Sorry, I couldn't be of any more help. GusF 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Robot Chicken reference
Thanks much!! I always enjoy getting those subtle references that might not be clear on the first go-round! That's one of the joys of Wiki - something missed by one is picked up by others! :) SkierRMH 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT and talkpages
Hi, just to let you know that while not all of WP:NOT applies to talkpages, one element of it applies exclusively to talkpages. It means that any threads not specifically geared towards improving the associated article or page aren't allowed, and WP:TALK mandates the deletion of such threads: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". Thanks for you efforts, though!--Rambutan (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not really! Comments like this are speculation about what happens in the episodes rather than how the article could be improved.--Rambutan (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy Chandler
Thanks for the catch; pure carelessness on my part, I suppose. Acdixon 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter
Do some research and find a source for your information. See WP:V:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
∴ Therefore talk 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not questioning the truth of your statement. I'll patiently await (that is meant mirthfully) your citation. Note, I'm the second editor to remove. ∴ Therefore talk 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, the fact isn't obvious -- each state has different methods for appointing replacements, not always by the state executive. But I do know that your statement is true. There should be plenty of sources that describe this and make the statement that one of the motivations for support is to avoid upsetting the balance of power in the Senate. ∴ Therefore talk 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of the fact tag is for editors to mark statements that other editors have made. It isn't designed to get around the WP:V rules. But I do understand if you are using it as a temporary placeholder. ∴ Therefore talk 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my state, Oregon, along with Wisconsin, has not adopted gubernatorial appointments to fill vacancies. The office stays vacant until a special election. Massachusetts and Alaska recently changed their policies and no longer have the state executive do the appointments. Along with other state inconsistencies, this is the motive behind a Constitutional Amendment to make this consistent. ∴ Therefore talk 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
91.104.204.121
Thank you for making a report about 91.104.204.121 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. TigerShark 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter redux
Besides Hannity, Christian Conservatives for Reform or that LA state GOP committee member? Not many. My point isn't that it isn't accurate to say "accurate" but more that the sources listed don't support it. Let the text of that section (which if you notice from the talk page, I defended from deletion from another editor) speak for itself. We don't need to make the irony explicit for the reader and, cuz of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, shouldn't. ∴ Therefore talk 03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I added in a paragraph to the Reaction section. It says the same thing you were saying except that it is a) sourced and b) properly framed as coming from a source. ∴ Therefore talk 04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk on user page
I noticed that you added a comment to User:TMC1982 instead of User Talk:TMC1982. Others seem to have done the same, though. --GargoyleMT 14:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Succession Boxes
WP:SBS is currently in the process of removing restrictive succession template designs such as those I have noted that you've created in the past few months. We are in no way blaming you for creating them because we strongly believe that it was done in the best intents, however, I will direct you to Template:s-start/doc for the current usages and rules for succession boxes where you will find the very easy and more flexible succession box series that is currently in use across Wikipedia. In it, look for the rows option which will fix the reason that you have created some of the succession box templates in the first place. In the coming days, I will clean up the seven or so articles currently using your "succession box x by x" templates and propose them for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please reply back to my talk page of the project talk page at WT:SBS. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know
I didn't know the rule about userpages and free use images. Thank you for enlightening me and removing the image. I did not mean to be in violation of copyright law. >-{ Brandonrush }-<
Wikimania in Atlanta!
Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!
P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- We need all sorts of volunteers. Online stuff or in-person. Technical matters, setting up the actual event, website things, working at the event. Anything you can think of, we probably need it. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Rivalry
I had created "The Rivalry" page to solve the previous revert wars as to whether the page should be called the Lehigh-Lafayette game or the Lafayette-Lehigh game. How will your recent "improvement" prevent that issue from recurring? Thanks GCW50 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I read your response, but you didn't answer the point I raised. Are you now taking responsibility to monitor and correct any changes by Lafayette fans who want to refer it as the Lafayette-Lehigh? We had such a revert war originally before "The Rivalry". So as long as you're now taking on the responsibility of monitoring the site to prevent such changes, I'm fine with it. BTW, I went to Lehigh and my brother went to Lafayette, so I know that when not using "The Rivalry" term, each college always places its own name first. GCW50 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- You also seem to have forgotten to update the Army-Navy game page as well as many others in the college rivalry category. GCW50 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
AIV report on 201.151.123.9
I didn't act against the address because one edit was made from there in the preceding week, which was two days before your report. It hasn't made any edits since then. That doesn't qualify as "active" in my book, so no action is warranted at AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sexual pervert?
I'm not sure if speculations or inferences based on a fictional character are allowed, but the sexual pervert thing is so weird? Could you discuss it on Talk:Gregory House? I thought it was vandalism, but I'm not sure about your intent. mirageinred 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying what you meant. By the way, an anonymous editor deleted your edit. I thought you would like to know if you wanted to add it back. mirageinred 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
craig
there was no citation for your speculation that he "technically" could change his mind again. unless you own a crystal ball, uncited speculation about the future gets removed, as another editor so kindly did already. cheers. Anastrophe 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
About the House M. D. Article...
just curious...why did you remove the link to the "list of house episode" in the plot section of the house article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivineBaboon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sandy's Master Service Award
Please read SandyGeorgia's comments here; she describes a more polite, less disruptive way you could have gone about bringing this "requirements" nonsense to the awarder's attention without necessarily messing up her user subpage. Sandy's one of the classiest editors involved in this project; we could all take a few queues on her.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- More generally, you also might be interested in the nomination to delete the award in quesiton.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is
I never awarded nor have I ever had any "service" barnstars awarded to me (nor do I want them). If you are implying that I'm disgruntled because I've had them removed from my user page, then that would be an incorrect assumption. I have put the "master editor" service award up for deletion because I fear it is elitist and awards people for entirely the wrong reasons: number of edit counts and time on the project. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like that was your point: "You just want to maintain your groups monopoly on Barnstars. You are elitist". Seriously, grow up. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
House
Because the "Recurring character" list isn't a running list of what doctors remain. You're completely confused buddy. The other two doctors have virtually no role and aren't "recurring" characters per se, they're just characters that happen to appear in more than one episode; if you want to be consistent on that, you can add the dozens of characters that have done that to the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I dont' know what you're talking about the episode aired a week ago...three doctors were eliminated, and they had virtually zero lines, and simply "appeared" in the episode. There's no point in putting information on Wikipedia that is certain to be deleted by the end of the season; you really think you're going to want a list on the main page 2nd paragraph with listings about "Jody" on them? That's simply silly.Mooshimanx 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's not a running tally of the doctors in this fellowship program, and I already know who is being added full-time, and I certainly didn't cut them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it so it forwards to the character page, as I dont' think "recurring characters" belong on the front page of a series that has it's own character page and because it will settle the revert war— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs)
House - Holmes
I removed it because I didn't see a source. Where is the BBC article? Even if it is sourced, I think it should be removed anyways because it seems more relevant to House himself than the show. mirageinred 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Good eye
Thanks for catching my error. I was intending to revert the addition of the entire paragraph, but the editor who's been adding the material has some kind of rolling IP so I only reverted one IP's edit. He's adding almost identical material to a few other bios too, including Lou Dobbs, Bill Maher, and Glenn Beck, despite opposition from other editors. It's all related to the Armenian Genocide Resolution before the U.S. House. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, "recognise" isn't a misspelling, it's a British spelling variation. However it doesn't belong in a bio of a U.S. statesman. I can't explain it, but introducing errors into the encyclopedia does seem to be an attractive idea for users of a certain age. I watch over some bios of early U.S. figures and see it all the time. Folks like to change the birthdate of Abigail Adams, for example. That's why patrollers like you are so valuable. Thanks for improving the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
List source tips
Hi, List of Presidents of the American Bar Association looks like a nice list in the making. I dont have a lot of time to dedicate to help, but i'll keep an eye out and help you with any that are particularly difficult to figure out. If you are not already, I suggest you use the New York Times archive to work out the details. President+"American Bar Association" appears 4,887 times, so that should help with most of it. Then searching on peoples names will help too, see Edward+Eliot. John Vandenberg 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of David Dunn(Governor)
A tag has been placed on David Dunn(Governor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G2.
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 by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you creating these empty test pages? Please explain why you made those. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Special:Whatlinkshere works on nonexistent pages as well. As you can see, there's no need to create a page to see what links to it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on David Dunn (Maine), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because David Dunn (Maine) is a test page.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting David Dunn (Maine), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter
There is an edit war on this page. I've reverted three times but there are two users (I suspect are sockpuppets) that want to add unsourced POV information in the section David Vitter#Louisiana Family Forum earmark and they subsequently both deleted the entire section. Any chance I can get another editor too look at this? I discuss it at Talk:David Vitter#Louisiana Forum section. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind -- someone else jumped in. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter RFC
Could you please leave your comments at a Davit Vitter RFC? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
House Seniority
Thanks. Please add whatever information and clarifications might be necessary. Katagelophobia 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
William H. Neukom
Can you add some citations and a stub template to this article? It's liable to get deleted if you don't.--Dr who1975 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
May I guess that you didn't read the discussion section of the William H. Neukom article ? If you didn't read it please do so. Honestly, I probably can't add a stub template, so if you know how to then perhaps rather than deleting the article you could add the stub template along with any info about Neukom you would like and what ever reference you can find. Please do not post your comments to my use my user page, that is what a discussion section is for. I will move your comment to my discussion section, and will see if I can properly cite the sources I used in the article and if you do not like them maybe you can fix it rather than deleting the article. If you have any more to say that is constructive please use my comment section since I rarely look at my user page, and because it is better form to put comments in the comment section. John5Russell3Finley 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William H. Neukom Can you add some citations and a stub template to this article? It's liable to get deleted if you don't.--Dr who1975 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
for my reply see the discussion page of Dr who1975 John5Russell3Finley 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the discussion area before my initial post. You simply ask people to add "more". How does that change any of my comments which center around citing and securing the informationm you have already put there? You accused me of deleting the article but it has not been deleted and I was never threatening to do so. I will go ahead and add the stub template and citations for you. These are easy things to do that you can learn simply by looking at othe arrticles in wikipedia (or politely asking another wikipedian who leaves a constructive message about these things in your discussion area). I will let you know once i have done so so you can look at my changes so that, in the future, you can do these things too.--Dr who1975 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I've wikified the stub... please take a moment to reveiw my changes as these are all elements you could've added to the article. If you feel there are any further improvements to be made to the article. Please feel free to be bold and do so.--Dr who1975 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. It is good that you added this page. I hope our exchange here hasn't soured you on contributing to wikipedia. My goal here was to show some other things you're going to want to add when you create a new article.--Dr who1975 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I didn't add the style tag to the article. User:W.marsh did. If you click the history and do a diff you can see who added what. I was trying to explain to you why I thought he added it and reassure you it wasn't a slight but I see no good deed goes unpunished.thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have cut and pasted the entire discussion from my discussion page for your benefit. 1)Please read the entire thing and compare it to the facts. 2)Consider, do you have any pupose for bothering me about this ?
I think you are being meddlesome here, you are inches away from having me file a complaint about your behaviour. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Gothic rock and the 3RR
I think you're right that Breathtaker may have abused an IP address to dodge 3RR (though by my count, the IP's edit was the third revert). However, the only defense against multiple reverts is to clean up blatant vandalism. Moving to a consensus-preferred version is not vandalism cleanup, and it takes two to edit war. Accordingly, both of you were edit warring. While I don't think Breathtaker crossed the line to bad faith editing, my point was that by providing citations, you were working to improve the article rather than getting into a straight revert-and-revert-again war.
That said, when I picked a version of The Crüxshadows to leave that article at, I went with the version that provided a positive citation--an All Music Guide biography--for the inclusion of the genre, as opposed to the negative (it's not listed in my source, therefore, that's evidence that it isn't in the genre) evidence provided in edit summaries by Breathtaker. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You...
...are the best example of a bureaucratic university asshole. your nonsense contributions are really amazing. Write an article, that's better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.38.37 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Removals from userspace
Users are free to remove unwanted warnings or tags from their userspace unless they are banned entirely. In the case of a warning, removal is considered an acknowledgement that the user has received and read the warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
GWB DUI
Nah, it's okay. You may want to wikilink it for further clarity, though. GlassCobra 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
IPs
It is absolutely useless to mark my IPs ([3]), because they're dynamic. Different people use the same IPs. And they're no "sockpuppets". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.29.90 (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since you were interested in this issue, I can tell you the whole range of addresses have been blocked. If you spot any outside the range but evidently the same person please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Saxon
(my talk page) The return of the Master Trilogy, is part of the Mr. Saxon storyline... and is already covered.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I relised that after hitting the "save changes" button. StuartDD contributions 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I updated the famous FSU Alumni
I felt the need to update the famous FSU Alumni. I think it's time the world knew of the outstanding people who attended this institution. Let me know what you think... --jccort
Thank you
Thank you for the token of your appreciation. I'll cherish it.—Markles 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A thank you from me too
Hello Dr who1975. Thank you for the info about where the name for the Master came from that I removed from "The Sound of Drums" cast list. While I love the show I haven't kept up with all of the novels and other media that it has inspired so I appreciate learning this. As to its being mentioned on the page for this episode I would think that it is a little bit iffy. One of the items in the MoS for the Doctor Who wikiproject is that the cast lists should be listed as they are onscreen, which is why I removed it. I know you may already be aware of this so my apologies if I am repeating known info. It might merit a mention in the continuity section, but, I am not sure. When I first started editing here the main people who were overseeing the shows wikipages were fairly strict about the canonicity thing. But there are new editors working on the project now so feelings might have changed. My only suggestion is that you might ask on the talk page for the project if they think a mention of it could be included and see what they say. Thanks again for the info and for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
List of Presidents
Could we perhaps discuss it on the article's talk page? It seems a more suitable venue. CloudNine (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger Wicker
Roger Wicker is running for the senate seat he was appointed to. Note his campaign web site at [4] Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You're too quick!
Thanks for beating me to the punch on renaming Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008. I was just a couple clicks too slow. :) Ashdog137 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- We just went through a whole merger discussion to merge the special senate election article with the general election article. Because of the controversy surrounding the special election, ie: laws not being followed, looming court action, etc., the consensus was not to merge the 2 articles. Did you not read that on the talk page? These aren't the same as Wyoming as Wyoming's special election doesn't have the controversy. I'm tempted to revert your changes but am willing to discuss it first. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- As a result, I've added a split/unmerge proposal to the merged article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Frank J. Anderson
I noticed you changed a Section Header in the Frank J. Anderson article from "References" to "External links", and created a separate "References" section. Following your edits, I changed the name of the "External links" to "Sources", because the links under that section were used as sources to write the article, and I am not well-versed enough to create or add to "References" sections in Wikipedia.. Under Wikipedia's external links policy, "External links" should not be used as sources or references, they are supposed to provide "further reading" for users. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for merging the "References" and "Sources" sections in the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Invite
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
Reply
I haven't been around lately, a lot going on IRL, but I wanted to pass this helpful link to you from the Navy League. Check the blue box links for "Veterans in the House of Representatives" and "Veterans in the Senate". They list all the veterans in the current Congress. I have used previous versions of these documents to source military service for reps and senators before. (I went back and updated all those older links to web.archive versions, since these files change every congress). The Navy League just recently published these particular versions, it seems to take them a while to get new ones compiled and published, so I have not used these as sources yet, and probably won't have time in the immediate future. Cheers. - Crockspot (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Family Guy
You might be right, actually. I just grabbed the screeenshot from the film that was immediately after entering Hyperspace. Will (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oldest House of Representatives
Sorry for Long delay in Response. I have compiled a list already of Representatives from about 1964- 1953. Which was from my own research the the first year I found any surviving Representatives. I did post them on my Talk Page . If you like to take a look.. --Thomas (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sephardi Jews
Hi Dr who,
Just wanted to let you know that the only reason I undid your original edit to add photos to Sephardi Jews was purely for aesthetic reasons; it didn't look very good. The new version that you put in is much better, and I'm quite happy to keep it. :) DanielC/T 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
birthday massacre
LOL, thanks for the heads up. I'm actually pretty relaxed about the whole thing, as it only takes a few seconds to revert his edits, so I get to follow policy and watch him go bonkers over a band he doesn't even listen to.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the band is really baby crap. I think the kiddies are the same who listen to baby crap such as Blutengel or Tokio Hotel. But the baby crap band is not the problem. The problem is the wrong genre. And you know that. --87.122.21.55 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Suspiria
Hello there Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. It's my first article. I appreciate your helping with the citations. However I was wondering if you could redo the Gothic Rock edit. Musically, Suspiria are far more important than at least two of the bands already listed in the 1990s section, All Living Fear and Vendemmian, and arguably Children on Stun and Rosetta Stone if one thinks that all these four bands were merely derivative of the 80s sound that Suspiria blew apart. In terms of output Suspiria released more than Vendemmian and sold more than all the others combined, with the exception of Rosetta Stone. Stylistically there is a difference, but if the rationale for removing Suspiria as one of the most important goth rock bands of the 90s is that they had a more electronic sound than many of those listed, then the Crux Shadows and Last Dance should also be removed. Again, I appreciate your help but I think the omission of Suspiria in the first place on this list was no doubt a political act rather than a true reflection of their impact on the 90's goth scene. BTW, Do Who rocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiRed (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Suspiria
Have posted a forum thread re-Suspiria as a gothic rock band. Do let me know if you have any ideas for citations. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiRed (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:49Z
RFCU case moved
Hi, I moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/France a. As you may know, we use the name of the main account as the case name (it makes it easier for us to keep track of the recent requests). -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC).
- Just to clear up the confusion, I'm not a CU, just a clerk. The case hasn't been reviewed by a checkuser yet. I am not commenting on the merits of the case, but you should probably add stronger arguments for the check, such as evidence of the previous sockpuppetry. I wasn't able to find an onwiki discussion on france a. And the users you added are listed as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit, were france a's name does not appear. -- lucasbfr talk 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Dr who1975. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone else in costume
Actually that one doesn't fit. Anyway, it's not what the article is about. Doczilla (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, here it is. It's this sentence: "Still other characters remain permanently dead, but are replaced by characters who assume their personas (such as Wally West taking over for Barry Allen as the Flash), so the death does not cause a genuine break in character continuity." Doczilla (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Gary Numan
Sorry about the goofup on gothic rock. I have NEVER heard of Numan being considered gothic rock. His music was purely electronic in nature.His article calls him electropop.Crescentia (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008
I had already started a discussion at Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 before you started the edit war. Let's move the discussion there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop making personal attacks
Please stop making personal attacks on my talk page, thank-you.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
drafting comments
In regards to these, please draft your comments and preview them before clicking the save button. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the request for arbitration as it wasnt formatted correctly, and I think it was a bit hasty. I'll try and help you two find a solution, or assist you get started on dispute resolution. Bear with me a few minutes as I catch up. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Created a list on wikipedia itself, please help out on it if you want. Thanks. --Rajah (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Working together well with others
Hi.
Please see User_talk:Lar#Dr_Who1975. I don't think that Steelbeard1 made a very good suggestion at all, and I told him that... but I can see from your talk page and from some of the article discussion pages you're involved in that people are raising concerns to you about your approach. I would like to suggest that you might want to consider that there are several people doing so, not just one, which usually is a signal that there might be something wrong and it's not just them. Please try to work together collegially with others as it will make a more pleasant experience for all. Realise that they may not be doing so themselves, but try to rise above the fray if you can, try to be better than those you deal with rather than worse, as an ideal. I hope this advice helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since you chose to answer me on my talk page (see User:Lar/Pooh policy) I'll continue there. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI to anyone reading this... people should never rely soley on comments on a wikipedians discussion page to assess their behavior. A persons submission history should be scrutinized carefully... and I stress carefully.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sephardi Jews - 9 images
Hello Dr who1975! Thanks for your note. Hadn't thought of that... Do you think a solution just as the one that was found for Portuguese people (see image below) is a good idea? I'll work on it and propose it. Thank! The Ogre (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! Following your last note, I have uploaded to the commons the image you can see below. I'm putting it in the article. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not copirighted - check the page at the commons! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
H. James Towey (aka: Jim Towey)
I had originally edited the FSU Alumni page, and stated that Jim Towey was a U.S. Representative. I later realized that I made a mistake, and he in fact had a position with the Executive Branch.
I corrected the error on the FSU Alumni page, and now it reads like this:
- H. James Towey, current President of Saint Vincent College, and director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
--Hope this helps. Jccort (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
List of comedian politicians
1) I rolled back your edits after blanking, that's my standard MO - that's why the orphan tag was removed; 2) How'd I find it? Special:Shortpages, all blanked pages show up, so that we can restore them if no one on RC patrol catches the blanking. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Categorization of people
The section on Biographies of living people says this: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. "
I've only been removing the tags from living people where the article doesn't discuss their religion beyond "so-and-so attends this church" (or just a mention in the infobox), because that has nothing to do with their notability and is really just trivia. Some articles make an effort to discuss how the religion is important to the person's life, and I've left those categories. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion, I'll take your advice on the more descriptive edit summary. I didn't think about the other section on that page confusing the matter. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to infoboxes, the religion is also mentioned in the body of some of those you deleted. So your edit summary is incorrect rather than just not being descriptive enough. Red Harvest (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Home Depot category
Yeah, I was definitely surprised on how my rename discussion turned out. I'm neither a CFD nor a category expert, so I didn't know if that was the norm or not. I apologize that I didn't participate in your discussion, but it slipped my mind (not that you needed my input, anyway). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately, I'm not. By the way, I changed the name of the category to Category:The Home Depot people. It may take up to a week to complete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
David Vitter
Come to the talk page and let's discuss this. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think to say one "didn't deny" an implied accusation may even be worse. The controversy section is careful not to explicitly state he broke the law because the sources didn't come out and say this. A reader of the article and the sources, however, will make that natural inference, particularly when it is implied by "Vitter is unlikely to face criminal charges due to statutes of limitations". Let the reader do the inferring -- it is best that we don't push it on them. I think the sentence reads fine as is. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
His birth date (27 February 1925) is in Burke's Peerage, as he's in remainder to the barony of Amherst of Hackney, as grandson of Mary Rothes Margaret Tyssen-Amhurst, later Tyssen-Amherst, Baroness Amherst of Hackney in her own right (that is, he is the nephew of the third baron). Specifically, in the 106th edition of Burke's, he's on page 68. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Though the birthday I changed was that of William Amherst Vanderbilt Cecil, from the same source.) - Nunh-huh 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to help. Here's some of his ancestors.... - Nunh-huh 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
16 . Brownlow Cecil | |||||||||||||||||||
8. William Alleyne Cecil | |||||||||||||||||||
17 . Isabella Poyntz | |||||||||||||||||||
4. William Cecil | |||||||||||||||||||
18 . Thomas Pakenham | |||||||||||||||||||
9. Georgina Sophia Pakenham | |||||||||||||||||||
19 . Georgiana Emma Charlotte Lygon | |||||||||||||||||||
2. John Francis Amherst Cecil | |||||||||||||||||||
20 . William George Tyssen-Amhurst | |||||||||||||||||||
10 . William Amherst Daniel-Tyssen, later Tyssen-Amhurst, later Tyssen-Amherst | |||||||||||||||||||
21 . Mary Fountaine | |||||||||||||||||||
5. Mary Rothes Margaret Tyssen-Amherst | |||||||||||||||||||
22 . Adm. Robert Mitford | |||||||||||||||||||
11 . Margaret Susan Mitford | |||||||||||||||||||
23 . Margaret Dunsmore | |||||||||||||||||||
1. George Henry Vanderbilt Cecil | |||||||||||||||||||
24 . Cornelius Vanderbilt | |||||||||||||||||||
12 . William Henry Vanderbilt | |||||||||||||||||||
25 . Sophia Johnson | |||||||||||||||||||
6. George Washington Vanderbilt | |||||||||||||||||||
26 . Rev. Samuel Kissam | |||||||||||||||||||
13 . Maria Louisa Kissam | |||||||||||||||||||
27 . Margaret Hamilton Adams | |||||||||||||||||||
3. Cornelia Stuyvesant Vanderbilt | |||||||||||||||||||
28 . George Andrew Dresser | |||||||||||||||||||
14 . George Warren Dresser | |||||||||||||||||||
29 . Hannah W. Brown | |||||||||||||||||||
7. Edith Stuyvesant Dresser | |||||||||||||||||||
30 . David LeRoy | |||||||||||||||||||
15 . Susan Fish LeRoy | |||||||||||||||||||
31 . Susan Elizabeth Fish | |||||||||||||||||||
I'm afraid I don't know anything of any "Tudor-Pole" family. They are certainly not listed in the indices of Burke's Peerage (and don't appear with the family of the Earl of Mornington or the Duke of Wellington) or the "Tudor Roll" of The Blood Royal of Britain. So I think they are at best obscure, and it's possible the name is just one someone chose rather than a reflection of an actual descent. If you could find a place where they detailed their ancestry I might be able to be of more help. Sorry. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
birthday massacre
The quibbling has gone on so long that I'm no longer really concerned about what genre is listed on the page. Label them acid jazz, for all I care. My only concern is bureaucratic fucks deleting the source because they're careless or because it conflicts with their worthless opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloween jack (talk • contribs)
Merger proposal
Please see Talk:United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008#Merger proposal.—Markles 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Herseth
Herseth is still my favorite. Giffords isn't that cute in person. Maybe I will redo my userpage and drop a box for that in there once again. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
List of American supercentenarians
Hi. I'm at my third revert, so I want to end this now if possible. The problem is not so much the flag icons themselves, but more the issue that a) It is a violation of WP:DATE to include places of birth and death in with the dates of birth and death b) None of the material that I am removing is cited, therefore it may be removed at any time. Cheers, CP 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine with me! Thanks for the note! Cheers, CP 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
André Carson
I've moved articles using the move section before, but this was the first article I've moved to what was a re-direct. I looked at WP:R and it really didn't help so I was messing around, trying to figure out how bypass a re-direct, and finally I figured out a way to move the page. The only thing that was lost was the history. --Tocino 05:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Apologies -- I'm sorry I removed the note. It just seemed rather rude with the all caps thing and didn't want any edit war thing happening or people taking offense. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask for the page to be protected? Or if you feel the note is really going to stop the type of person you mentioned maybe you can put it in normal type? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Breathtaker sock
The IP is now blocked, an admin got the message. A whois check on the IP reveals it's a shared IP, it's not Dynamic. Maybe a range block on 87.122.*.* is in order. Momusufan (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just blocked User:87.122.8.119 also. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
87.122.5.70 Momusufan (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rjd0060 is working on that range block right now, just so you know. Momusufan (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 blocked the IP range, it has been blocked for one week. Momusufan (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to take the credit, but User:East718 did the block, after I discussed it with him. Good work taking care of his edits...- Rjd0060 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I figured he would have given up by now.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can add 87.122.25.100 to the long list of IPs this vandal has used. A look at the edits makes it obvious: [5]. Tedious, very tedious. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For your information
Hi Dr who1975. FYI. Wanting to alert you my comment in a discussion that you started. I'm still too involved to do anything myself, but I'm still following the various discussions around age-related and longevity and supercentenarian articles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Robert Young
I have to agree with your sentiment on him. After reviewing his edit history, I believe he was doing a pretty good job right up until October/November 2007, and that the e-mails he sent after his talk page was locked shows that he had, to some extent, acknowledged that his actions were wrong. If I were an admin, I would contact him sometime around May 2008 (6 months after his block) to extend an olive branch to him. TML (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Electronic Body Music
Why do you keep readding bands that are not notable or not EBM-bands to the list of notable bands on that article? --Dalen (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- My only issue was that removing these three bands from the list was correct. I removed them again and wrote in the edit note why I think it's correct to remove them from the article.--Dalen (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
comment
I had no idea he was a banned sockpuppeter, please just tell people these things next time instead of assuming you need to be nasty. Zazaban (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
André Carson
Sorry about that The only thing that I apparently undid was a dead reference. If you're going to make major changes, you may want to put {{inprogress}} at the top. Another friendly suggestion: you may want to archive this talk; it's gargantuan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Formatting rules for comments Not as far as I'm aware. Your explanation makes sense; I simply changed the capitalization because it seemed combative. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
IP
What's with User:87.122.5.162? Should this be reported at AIV or something? -WarthogDemon 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject FSU!
As a current or past contributor to a Florida State University articles, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida State University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~ |
Jccort (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: User:Breathtaker
My apologies for taking so long to reply. I suggest you file a new case at suspected sockpuppets, where an administrator more experienced in sock-hunting can assist you. Yours, east.718 at 06:46, March 16, 2008
No factual disput for superdelegate page.
Dr. Who.
I may have given you the wrong impression. Add-on delegates are full-fledged superdelegates. They're selected by the states but the process, rights, and allocation are all determined by the DNC. The add-on delegates should be in the list. Please see the specific discussion page in the superdem talk section. ...and I'd prefer it if you would remove the dispute. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Invite
As a current or past contributor to a Florida State University articles, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida State University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~ |
Jccort (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine.
I think Subver was merely trying to move us forward to a consensus. I'm fine with whatever resolution structure you want to use. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --Scantron2 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Move forward with dispute?
Dr Who1975. As you may know, Subver undid your move of the page title from ...superdelegates, 2008 to ...unpledged delegates, 2008 so that it now reads "Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008." This is probably the best starting point to proceed from as it reflects the traditional title of the page.
Another user, Grsz11 has thrown a dispute tag up -- not presenting any disagreement, but merely referencing the ongoing discussion between between yourself and the other editors of the article.
Although the dispute was entered by the above-referenced user, I'm assuming that you would like to be the counterparty to this dispute's resolution. It is, after all, your dispute that Grsz11 references.
I have provided a template to present in the conflict resolution process. It will need to be moved to its own section. I put in the argument you had entered before -- before you reverted your edits. I believe you should have the opportunity to add or amend this before we move forward.
So - a few questions:
- First, is it possible to reach a consensus here? I'd rather not move to dispute resolution if there is a third option -- although Grsz11's entry may make that more difficult. The tradition for this article is to resolve disputes amicably and by consensus.
- Second, if we move to dispute resolution, would you like to be the party to this conflict, or should I approach Grsz11? All things considered, I'd prefer that you represent the "unpledged delegates" perspective because the concern appears to be yours.
- Third, is there anything you'd like to add to the "unpledged delegates" text to be submitted for dispute resolution? The text there is your own, but I want to give you every opportunity to contribute so that the process is fair to you.
- Fourth, do you care whether the counterparty is Subver, me, or anyone else? My ego's not wrapped up in this -- I'd be happy to have any of the editors who have spoken up represent our side. But if you have a particular preference, let me know.
- Fifth, is there anything I've missed here? I realize both sides got off on the wrong foot. If there's anything I'm not understanding, that you haven't been able to say, or any out-of-the-box ideas you can come up with, please let me know.
Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have accepted your proposal for formal dispute resolution.
As I mentioned yesterday, I agree that we should move forward with a formal process for resolving this issue.
I have prepared a template here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_superdelegates%2C_2008#Editor_consensus_achieved.__Accept_Dr_Who1975_proposal_for_formal_resolution. that includes the argument you initially put forward as the summary for the pro-unpledged-delegates side.
I will move forward, as I said earlier, at 10 PM easter tonight. Please do review the template to make sure that it is fairly presented. If you would like to flip the order of "superdelegates" and "unpledged delegates", that would be fine. Also make whatever changes you would like to your side.
Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dr Who1975. I have posted the Request for Comments. My hope is that by allowing people to comment in a focused way, this may provide assistance in a way that we can all agree with. The process is informal. If you should want to revise the explanation for your perspective (which is yours, verbatim, per your post and template proposing this process) then by all means revise that description. Again, this is meant to be a helpful feedback process. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Dr Who1975. Thanks for including your position in the request for comments. If you'd like to modify the pro-unpledged text to reflect your clarification, by all means do. I want to make sure the board gets the best feedback possible. Also, feel free to "flip" the order if you think that introduces bias or affects the feedback. Regards, --216.161.142.10 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Oops! That was me. --Scantron2 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Paradoxes
Now, though the paradox is enough to damage the fabric of the Universe, removing me from time would do no better, for if I, a creature that extends in 3 dimensions, am removed from time, but not space, that would unravel time-space itself, not to mention the quantum uncertainty that would result from my removal even if removed from both. How will the Universe explain all the interactions I have already had?KV(Talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Upon reflecting even more...... removing me from time after I had caused damage to the fabric of universe, the Universe could only explain the effects of my actions by creating a natural effect that would account for the damage in space-time. Being such, removing me would create a natural decay amongst space-time, making the big tear and big crunch theories meaningless, as the universe will eventually be ended by space-time deteriorating to the point where the world becomes nonsensical. That would be a bad move. KV(Talk) 18:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You sound so defensive. Did somebody tell you this wasn't notable?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not defensive at all. Just typed in some factual statements in the edit summary box. Which, of course, limits me to only XXX number of words to explain myself. Did you read the edit history? This Abigail Taylor death was deleted twice before -- both deleters (different people) said that she was "not notable" -- and both times that I reverted the deletions, I added some explanation that it was indeed notable. Why do you ask? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
- I started to look through the edit history but only went 2-3 revsions back... didn't notice anything. I see from your response that there was indeed some contention. Just wondering.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No prob. Yes, there were two prior deletes saying "no, she is not notable" which I reverted with a "yes, she is notable". What's your take, just out of curiosity? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
- These are the relevant edits in the history:
- 15:55, March 22, 2008 Joseph A. Spadaro (Talk | contribs) (37,087 bytes) (→20: add)
- 15:58, March 22, 2008 Joseph A. Spadaro (Talk | contribs) (37,162 bytes) (→20: maybe some one can word this better - thanks)
- 16:21, March 22, 2008 Xero-7 (Talk | contribs) (37,375 bytes) (→20: Removed Abigail Taylor... she is not an individual of notability.)
- 16:56, March 22, 2008 Joseph A. Spadaro (Talk | contribs) (37,762 bytes) (Undid revision 200140058 by Xero-7 (talk) - disagree - her death spurred important reforms and her swimming pool incident was notable)
- 21:23, March 22, 2008 Youri (Talk | contribs) (37,801 bytes) (→20: deleted Abigail Taylor (there's no reason she's her))
- 12:58, March 23, 2008 Joseph A. Spadaro (Talk | contribs) (38,141 bytes) (→20: she's notable and I am writing an article -- certainly more notable than 75% of others listed here without controversy)
- Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
- I'm generally of the opinion that "reliable citation" = "notable".--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will write an article about her as soon as I can. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
- (Uninvolved third party who just noticed the edit and discussion here, pardon my barging in:) If the only thing article-worthy about a person is the way in which they died, then there's certainly a case to be made for them being non-notable. However I think you've found an exception here in Abigail Taylor, in that her death has sparked renewed interest in passing significant safety laws/regulations. That coupled with the fact that there's a nice source to go along with it, and I'd say it's worth a short article, at least. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're not barging in ... so no apology needed. I agree. Her death was odd and received news print / air time. But, ultimately, what happened to her also galvanized federal legislation -- and national awareness -- of the underlying problems (pool safety). I will write a short article, as my time allows. Quite frankly, it's on my back-back-back burner. But, I will definitely get to it. Thanks for adding your input. Much appreciated. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
- FYI ... I started an article on Abigail Taylor today. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
Re: Breathtaker
Hello. In regard to this user, his socks, and his continuing campaign of vandalism, please see this report. I assume you will find this of interest. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have protected your user & talk pages for the time being. Meanwhile it's just a case of wolf-fencing him until a rangeblock can be worked out. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will need to look at the Checkuser case to minimise damage from a rangeblock, see if any innocent editors will be affected. For now, we seem to have breathing space but he can't hit your own pages. If no-one is around, you'll get a quick response at WP:AIV, just cite the link to the checkuser case. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have soft-blocked this range for a week. I will need to have this reviewed, but that should keep things quiet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Elections talk
Please join the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008#Charts.—Markles 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
__TOC__
"__TOC__" is a Magic word that forces a table of contents at that point. It was necessary at Talk:List of current United States Senators by seniority because someone had started a discussion there without a heading. A heading would have automatically created a table of contents. —Markles 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Biography assessment templates
Hi, and thanks for adding the WPBiography template to articles you created. There are a couple points I wanted to tell you. All the WPBiography templates stem from one original one, located at Template:WPBiography. When you use this template, just remove the lines that don't apply to the article (leaving for example, "politician-work-group"). Also, each work group has its own criteria for priority (which is what is used rather than "importance"), so please leave that assessment for the team to make. Actually, its not really appropriate to do a class and/or priority assessment for articles you create, so it's best to leave those blank, which will make the new article come up on the assessments needed page for the group. I noticed this from the Don Cazayoux page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article, which could still use a lot of cleanup - I have a long term goal eventually of getting the article to WP:FA. By the way, your talk page could use some archiving, it's a bit long. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- One thing I would like to see is to have all cites in the article formatted with WP:CIT, for example {{cite news}} for news/media cites. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the Clerk of the House documenting Speier's swearing-in, which was only half an hour ago as I write. I've already posted this link on the House article's talk page. [6] JTRH (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for not posting the cite on the main article page when I updated the chart. I know exactly what you mean about premature and/or uncited updates, which is why I made the comment on the talk page. JTRH (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just put the Speier sentence in because of the edit war, and it can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. I'm not wedded to the information about the upcoming special elections, either. I just thought it might head off an edit war the next time someone insists on updating the membership statistics the minute the polls close. JTRH (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for not posting the cite on the main article page when I updated the chart. I know exactly what you mean about premature and/or uncited updates, which is why I made the comment on the talk page. JTRH (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the Clerk of the House documenting Speier's swearing-in, which was only half an hour ago as I write. I've already posted this link on the House article's talk page. [6] JTRH (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:The Wrong Version, I didnt mean to lock it in any state. If you feel it needs to be removed that badly, add {{editprotected}} to the talk page with your reason for removing it and an uninvolved admin will fulfill your request. I personally cannot make a change on a page after I protect it unless it is blatant vandalism. Hope this helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama
Sorry, but your edit got swept up in a whole load of silly edits (you can see the sequence in the history). That being said, another editor has reverted your edit as well. It is probably something that warrants discussion on the talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mainly I was just surprised that none of the politicians had their websites on there before you just added them, and I assumed there must have been a good reason for that. I haven't been able to find any discussion on the matter, though, so I'm sorry for wasting your time and you can go ahead and put it back. johnpseudo 15:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Longevity of Congressional service article
Hi. I think the article listing the longest-serving members of Congress would work better in a table format, rather than having six different lists (total service, total uninterrupted, total Senate, uninterrupted Senate, total House, uninterrupted House), because a large number of people show up in the same places on more than one of those lists. For example, Robert Byrd is #2 on total service and total uninterrupted service, and #1 in total and uninterrupted Senate service. Would you mind if I took a shot at reformatting it? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Column 1: Member name, party, state
- Column 2: Total service
- Column 3: Rank in total service (this can be a number < 10)
- Column 4: Senate service if different from total (only include record-setters)
- Column 5: Rank in Senate service (again, just a number)
- Column 6: House service if different from total
- Column 7: Rank in House service (only include record-setters; Robert Byrd's House service doesn't need to be separately listed, because it's almost 50 years in the Senate that makes him of interest)
- Members who served only in one body and continuously don't need more than one entry, e.g., Jamie Whitten doesn't need to be listed in three different places as the longest-serving Representative, the longest continuously serving Representative, and the third-longest-serving member of either body. (BTW, "Congressman" only refers to House members. "Members of Congress" is a bit more inclusive. Strange but true.) JTRH (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dr_Who1975- Can you transpose this conversation to the article's talk page?—Markles 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the fix [8]! I had not even noticed that {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Humanist secular}} had broken. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You seemed incredulous at a small part of my cleanup. I was unable to determine whether the subject was a broker or a salesperson (the former requiring additional licensing, as well as a period of working as a salesperson), so I thought it safer to assume salesperson than broker. Qqqqqq (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Congressman
Alright, perhaps I was too strong in saying it was "incorrect." It is however, confusing and misleading, because "Congressman" is normally used to refer to members of the House. When there is a clearer term available, we should use it. john k (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? [9] I don't care whos sockpuppet it is, he reverted to the correct genre that was previously there before someone changed it and his change supports the consensus of those who actually work on these articles. Reverting all his edits because he is a sockpuppet, should not be done. I suggest you carefully look at previous revisions and what the user changed next time. — Κaiba 08:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say I want sockpuppets used abusively to do anything but you weren't enforcing anything, and if you were it wasn't anything positive for the encyclopedia aspect of this project. If you're going to be blindly reverting contributions, you're going to wind up in trouble. It is you're job as the reverter, to see what the correct revision would be, not mine, someone who happens to notice the history. Don't go reverting where you don't know what you're reverting. Period. — Κaiba 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because it is agreed consensus that arrived on the talk page. Any other genres listed are reverted unless it is discussed. Many discussions have already been had about any of the gothic genres being added, and it was agreed previously that they were not part of that. — Κaiba 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
wikiprojects
- hello , I want to contribute in Iran Wikiproject.I am new here .could you help me?Bbadree (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The link in the special senate race article led me to the MS-1 house district special election article which required the cleanup. Remember that only declared candidates belong in the candidates section. Speculation and those who declined to run belong only in the body of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your format still gives Jamie Franks who never declared his candidacy equal footing with declared candidates and is totally unacceptable. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The new edit is acceptable now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning your comment about your last edit, I must stress again that those who never declared their candidacies must never, NEVER be listed on the same footing with actual candidates on candidates' lists. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin Rush
Yes... he does appear in the John Adams miniseries (played by John Dossett). He is in several of the episodes... as a fellow member of the Continental Congress, as a political advisor to Adams, as the the Doctor who opperated on Nabby Adams, etc. According to our article on him, he was instramental in convincing Adams to write to Jefferson and heal their antagonism. I just happened at a different time than is depicted in the miniseries. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was the same actor... but confirmation would be useful. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
New Messages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks
And you're welcome. Someday I may ask you to show me how to create sortable tables. JTRH (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Republica
Republica was a British band and stating that one of their albums wasn't released in America is not particularly relevant (are we supposed to list EVERY country in which an album wasn't released?) It is also unsourced so I have removed it. Please don't add it again unless you can provide a source, and a reason why it should be included (see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Potential" candidates
Regarding:
This is obviously a fabrication you created and I'm passing this along to a mediator. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a mediator, but I am an admin that Steelbeard1 has worked with in the past, and he brought this to my attention, I'm not sure if that is what he meant or not by saying he is "passing this along to a mediator". I'd be willing to try to help you both work through this matter, which seems a content dispute to me, if you both wish. Clarifying whether former/potential candidates do or don't belong on lists would certainly be helpful. Is there a project or policy/guideline talk page that might be appropriate? Getting additional views strikes me as useful. Let me know your thoughts, here, or on my talk page where Steelbeard1 brought it up. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed in Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and the consensus was that "potential" and "declined" persons who never declared their candidacies can be mentioned in the body of an article but should never, never be included in candidates' lists because to do so would give them equal footing with actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if they're marked in separate subsections of the list? But that said, Dr who1975, do you agree that discussion happened, and that Steelbeard1 has accurately described the outcome? Let's start there. Steelbeard, I haven't heard Dr who1975 affirm he wants mediation yet, it may be useful to let him/her speak. ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The 'potential and declined subsection' is not a good idea to put in a candidates' list because they were never candidates in the first place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if they're marked in separate subsections of the list? But that said, Dr who1975, do you agree that discussion happened, and that Steelbeard1 has accurately described the outcome? Let's start there. Steelbeard, I haven't heard Dr who1975 affirm he wants mediation yet, it may be useful to let him/her speak. ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed in Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and the consensus was that "potential" and "declined" persons who never declared their candidacies can be mentioned in the body of an article but should never, never be included in candidates' lists because to do so would give them equal footing with actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)