User talk:Ward3001/Archive 3

Barnstar for a good person

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For protecting the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people from vandalism and defamation by anonymous users and single-purpose-account vandals. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		To Ward3001 - an engaged enemy of vandalism. I learned a lot from your dedication. Awarded by Nielspeterq 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I saw this, you handled it very well, good work Patton123 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. They want to have loose reigns to make WP their playground for their own particular agendas. People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed.

The problem on WP is not so much the obvious trolls but the ones who make editing painful for other editors by repetitive questions, tendentious editing, private agendas hidden beneath yet lord of all arguments; immature teenagers and college students who view biographies of living persons as their private political platform rather than a task requiring the utmost responsibility and mature outlook, all in recognition that words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas.

Most people like me ended up at Missing Wikipedians much sooner, and many such people are enjoying the heck out of other, more responsible wikis, and some enjoying reading the jabs at places like Wikitruth. The price that has been paid and will continue to be paid until something changes is a Project in the guise of an encyclopedia that cannot even be cited by 1st graders, lest high schoolers. Welcome to your Wikipedia. I am done. CyberAnth 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia.

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Useful warnings

You may or may not have noticed in the comment for those warning dealies that I got the idea from User:Adam1213/warn. You might want to see how he did it and see if you like better the messages that he uses. Either way, these are handy for sending warning messages to vandals, and then if they continue vandalizing, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV and action is more likely to be taken since they were "adequately warned". One caveat that I got from a user once is that these abbreviated messages don't fit the wikipedia "standard" for warning messages. My take on this (and apparently Adam1213's also) is that a vandal knows exactly what he's doing and is more likely to read a single, pointed sentence than a wordy paragraph. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment possibly for you!

You might want to have a look at this comment and this thread. --Maniadis (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Message from Paul

Not sure if your going to get this or not, but Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate source for Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, etc., endorsed by many of the artists featured there themselves. The bio information would be considered very uselful by WikiPedia users....this is not spam. Please reconsider your deletion of the bio links we posted and get back to me either way at paulmaze@techwebsound.com.

Thanks!

Hi, I've copied this message here from the misplaced location, since I've requested the page be blanked for housekeeping purposes. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Webkinzman, again

This clinched it--blocked 24 hours. Blueboy96 04:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a Problem

Thanks for the compliment. I keep a good number of pages on my 'watch list' and sometimes monitor discussions even if I don't participate. I noticed that this particular discussion was in the early stages of nasty, so I just wanted to give a friendly reminder so that no one gets their feelings hurt later. We are all guilty of a bit of incivility, even if we are not aware of it, and I am not immune to it either. I sometimes have to take some time before I make comments too. A trip to the mall always helps, or I just pop in a DVD and watch it with my kids. We can't let editing wikipedia control our lives to the point that it is really all we do. I'm not pointing fingers either, I just thought a friendly word would help. Thanks again and Happy Editing--Jojhutton (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)\

Atheism and Adminship

Thanks for your note. For the record, I don't consider atheism to be 'anti-religion' either, I have no disrespect for anyone who has faith - I envy them in a way - I just ask that they don't impose their beliefs on me. Also, I have no desire to receive an adminship anyway, so even if I did think that the administrators were biased in some way, it hardly affects me. Thanks again for your note. --6afraidof7 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr heads up

Please see my warning. --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

As you may (or may not) have seen, I am posting some material for potential inclusion in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article. One thing I know that I have noticed is an extremely high degree of vandalism.

The articles I usually write or to which I contribute tend to be "fringe topics" at best. Traffic is minimal and a quick look at the "history" section typically reveals that my three-month-old edit was the last.

You are responding to what appears to be regular assaults on this article. Please keep up the good work. I THANK YOU for doing so and I wish you all the best in the future. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. In my humble opinion, the vandalism by "24.107.222.59" was about as low as it gets. I am amazed at how many vandals appear to be drawn to this particular article. On a rare occassion I sometimes update sports information. I haved noticed that those articles too are being vandalized all the time.

By the way, "68.149.153.29" got it right when he reverted his own revision. April 14 is documented on page 22 of Twenty Days. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Abraham Lincoln assassination. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will go look, but could you please specify what change you are talking about? Thanks! 98.117.222.127 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion

I have added a new section pertaining to all the linking in the main paragraphs which I feel are unnecessary and are clutterng it up. Even though I added about half a dozen of them myself. Please see the discussion and let me know what you think. Wontonkok (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My Image

Thank you for the clarification. As for the image copyright status that I put in when I first uploaded it, I was mistaken for another image I was putting in. In any case. I would like to know why the lennon/mccartney image is different then the Kray picture by David Bailey. I believe that one is a copyright as well. An explanation from you without harsh words will be appreciated. Thanks. username:Chasesboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasesboys (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I thought talk pages were TO talk about the movies. Well. Since I know know I will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Stone Cutter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.1.1 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yer a pal. Precious Roy (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Facial Expression

You removed a valid link I added to an external links section of the facial expression page. The approach shown on that website is a non-traditional way of looking at facial expression, it picks up where Duchenne couldn't go further giving the technology of the time. Can you explain why this in not relevant? Artifacial (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very Confused

I was notified of new messages today. When I checked them, it seems that people are mistaking me for someone else or something -- I was accused several times of editing things inappropriately -- and actually, to my knowledge, I've never even *read* the articles in question. I'm quite confused as to what to do about that -- Not that I have any desire to edit anyway, so I wouldn't be hurt much by having those priveleges revoked. It's just that I do not like to be falsely accused of anything. 209.183.32.47 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Derek W.

Recent Psychology Template edit

I think I may have balled up my attempt to undo a bit of vandalism (something like Roxy Socks was added by a vandal) to the Psychology Template. I am not positive, but I think I was editing about the time you edited the act of vandalism away. I either succeeded in editing the Roxy Socks addition out or unwittingly restored the addition that I wanted to delete. I didn't mean to get in the way of your edits. I feel the same opprobrium toward the vandals.Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Beatles

Here is the source [1]. Thanks for the reminder.  Marlith (Talk)  03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

G. K. Butterfield

Just a reminder to be careful of WP:3RR there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix

The stuff I have changed/added is verified by the previous refs, it's just a different interpretation/wording, or a correction.78.150.135.45 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you asked me "Why?"

In their article, Categories about English people (Category:English singer-songwriters etc. NOT Category:British singer-songwriters) are used. Why is Category:English people of Irish descent use impossible? I ain't gonna do wrong thing. --61.26.82.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Death penalty in Italy

please read the article Capital punishment in Italy.

The statment about the fact that Serenelli can be sentenced to death is false because death penlty has been abolished in Italy for common crimes since 1889 with the new penal code of Zanardelli.

Pulp Fiction

I'm a little offended by your rationale for undoing my edits on the movies page. You call them unnecessary and unexplained.... first and foremost, I rarely justify an edit. If only edits that are explained are kept, we would not have any. As far as the necessity of them, that page is in severe need of cleanup, which is what I did. The Lineage section that I created and now wasted a half hour of my life on thanks to your quick=triggered undo was 100% relavent and in fact quite interesting.

I understand that sometimes peoples articles can become a pet project, but a simple undo is usually very harsh. If you disagree with an edit, let me know, and work it out, instead of playing Judge, Jury, and executioner. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have flown off the handle a bit, sorry if I seem to over-react. I guess my main point is that I don't mean to be rude, I am simply a bit aggrivated. Please understand where I am coming from as far as undos go!!!! Rough day in real life. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bixby Letter

First of all, what is your position with Wikipedia? Why did you erase and threaten instead of communicating with me how I might reference this other than to say where it came from? I added as a reference that this information was from Massachusetts Town Births and 1850 Census. You erased my resource and my information. I am, in addition to being a psychology professor, a professional genealogist. (1)I stated where I got the information. (2) You state I made "controversial edits." Nothing I said was controversial. Those who state that someone deserted was being controversial. I am sharing genealogical information only. I do not see the source for Abraham Lincoln's birth date or George Washington's birth date in Wikipedia. (3) I have never added genealogical information to Wikipedia that was not substantiated by birth records, death records, or census records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the citation of ancestry.com. There are census books and there are a number of websites including ancestry.com that have the census and the Massachusetts Births. One must be a member of ancestry.com to actually see the evidence directly. Can I just show ancestry.com as the citation? Can the 1850 U.S Census be a citation somehow? It is a fact that no matter whose copy of the 1850 census you look at, it will be there. Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

Many of the edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.165.95.70 are obvious vandalism but I believe many less obvious edits are also vandalism which have gone unnoticed but brings the accuracy of those articles into question. I've reverted quite a few but I chose to stop being an ongoing contributor a while ago so I hope you have the enthusiasm and motivation to deal with this more completely. 59.167.50.24 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I could care less

I don't take the internet seriously. I don't care about bullshit rules on a website, because they don't matter at all. There are some things I will follow just out of respect, but when I see pure & utter bullshit..I call it. Thank you though, but I really don't care. =] Blindeffigy (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't care if Wiki IP blocks me. Now you're becoming just like everyone else. Don't tell me how to act, please. You don't know me, because this is just the internet. It's pathetic the way this website is run at times, and I have every right to call that out. I have every right to tell someone I think they are stupid, and I have every right to call bullshit. If sources said Lindsay Lohan was purple, when visibly not, this fucking website would note it. They do it with bands all the time. Bands who are obviously not a genre, are listed as such just because the biased magazines say they are. Coheed & Cambria are not 'new prog', but because some idiotic people think it's cool to say that..they are now listed as such. What if numerous sources said they were rap. Wikipedia ignores obviousness, because obviousness is hard to define. But there are some instances where obvious beats all, and that pisses me off. Blindeffigy (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Are you serious? Asking for a citation for Tisha Campbell-Martin's ethnicity is like asking a citation to see if Angelina Jolie is white or to see if Whoopi Goldberg is black or to see if Bill O'Reilly is Irish-American. The woman self-identifies as black. In case you don't know, there's a difference between light-skinned and white. The actress is light-skinned, not white. You're being a fool right now. Pandyu (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to destroy the black identity, right? I get it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I can see through you. Pandyu (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My responses here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the African American category. Sometimes things are a little too obvious for sourcing purposes. Please do not initiate confrontation over obvious edits. ►BMW◄ 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See the additional comments on the ANI page regarding this incident. Consider it closed before you go any further. ►BMW◄ 20:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor point

I don't want to stir up conflict between you and me, and this is a minor point that I can live with either way. But I'm curious why you made this edit since you didn't leave an edit summary. The link gives some additional information about King. If there was an article on King, the link would be to his article and would be entirely appropriate. But as I said, I'm just curious and don't plan to challenge the edit. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you created an article on King. Excellent! I assume you'll link it in the assassination article. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you approve. Mr. King seemed to be one of those people who rated at least a small article. If nothing else, the article links two totally unrelated (but very important) historical events with a person who was part of both. (On the other hand, I hope you are okay with my not adding the "Jack the Ripper" suspect who was rounded up after the assassination into the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'd like to apologize for my actions yesterday. Calling you those things was out of line and wrong. I did it in the heat of the moment. I am sorry. Pandyu (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Opps, Sorry

I forgot to read the talk page and I didn't notice the warning. Sorry 69.119.115.22 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes on assassination page

An editor has persistently changed a bulleted list (that I think you created) about those imprisoned after the assassination. Not only does that change create an inferior format, it deletes some interesting details. You may wish to comment on the talk page here. I can't revert it again because I don't want to violate 3RR. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article. Much appreciated!

I added a bit to the James W. Pumphrey article. It turns out he knew John Surratt and it was Surratt who introduced Pumphrey and Booth. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add your comments to the discussion the talk page, here, so that we can achieve a consensus. Vidor is quite persistent and likely will revert it back unless consensus goes against him. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add my two cents.

I reverted the material mainly to be able to what I indicated previously: "I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article." Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maddyfan name changing

She did it again, are you going to get admins involved now? — Realist² 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvement is better than deletion - let's not discourage editors from contributing

I think the way you handled the (Legg and Hutter, 2007) issue on the Intelligence article was less than optimal. What a fuss for one reference! While I believe your intentions were good, long protracted discussions wear out editors and discourage them from contributing. Personally, I have come away wondering whether I should have a break from contributing to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must try to attract highly skilled contributors; skilled in the specialist domains, even if not necessarily in WP policy. Looking through your edits, it seems most of your recent contributions are reverts/deletions. It is good to expect high standards, but rather than simply using deletion as your tool I would like to suggest you try improvement - Wikipedia will benefit. pgr94 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? Just deleting it really doesn't get us anywhere! Treating peer-reviewed publications the same way as a vandalism is not my idea of improving an encyclopedia. Please read the article - it's good! pgr94 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My responses here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for not protracting so I'll leave you to restore the reference back into Intelligence in the form that you see fit. pgr94 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're pulling my leg. You've read the paper; you saw that there are a collection of definitions for "intelligence" from various fields. The paper is available from the author's website and it appears in a book and there is a link to the publisher's website. I supplied ISBN, page numbers, authors, title, volume and all the links in my edits that you have reverted. I can't see how I can supply more than that. pgr94 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paper, you know the source. I'm beginning to realise you like going back and forth for kicks. I'm sorry I don't have time for this. I think it is better we keep out of each other's way in the future. Here are all the details: A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. In B. Goertzel, editor, Proc. 1st Annual artificial general intelligence workshop, 2006.

paper

pgr94 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatles meeting Presley

The reason for not finding the facts in other biographies about Beatles or Presley I've written in the discussion forum or not knowing about the things is the language barrier. Since German is mostly spoken only in Germany and Austria and parts of Switzerland information do not cross over that barrier. I made the experience quite often between the two countries Germany and Italy - Information which is easy to get in the one country can be never heard of in the other. 87.162.6.2 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Woops!

There's always that banana skin to slip on, isn't there?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears

I've started a peer review for Britney Spears. I'd love to get this to FA by spring, so I'm going around asking for as much input as possible. If you'd like to help, it would be appreciated. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Brittflick_1994#Copyrighted_images

I count ten more that haven't been deleted yet, but should be. Enigma ^message 01:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon's Wiki Page

Hi, I am trying to edit David Peel into John Lennon's page. He played the John Sinclair show 10 for 2 and the David Frost show. Both mentioned in the wiki page, both leave out Peel. This is FACT! 100% sourcable.. we should i nmot be able to edit it? Is this not what wiki is for?

User:PhiMedia —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

My response here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: link

restore it is you want. i dont even understand what youre deal is. Smith Jones (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that, then i put your link back so i guess its case closed unless you have something else Smith Jones (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-editing the Clapton stuff I did. I wasn't happy with my stuff, but it was the best I could manage. Now, let's see how long it is there before some Clapton fanboy takes it away again. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.150.220 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Hey, Ward. You obviously have not heard the 2007 into 08 broadcast on the Dick Clark Rockin Eve. You can youtube it though and educate yourself. Otherwise, keep up the good work. You've a VERY important person and don't let anyone tell you you're not doing an awesome job! (p.s., thanks for the sandbox comment; touche!)--Lindsay (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)