User talk:Deor

Archives:

User talk:Deor/Archive1 (12/2006–12/2007)
User talk:Deor/Archive2 (1/2008–6/2008)
User talk:Deor/Archive3 (7/2008–12/2008)
User talk:Deor/Archive4 (1/2009–6/2009)

From Pagetools

I noticed that you are removing some of my history sections. I think those sections are relevant because they assist in organization and expansion of the topics- they also follow the structure that is on other pages- it's a matter of organization and consistancy, no. The page is better constructed...your thoughts?Pagetools (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All that I've been removing is unsourced or improperly sourced material. Deor (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you define improperly sourced materials?Pagetools (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (especially deleted ones) can't be used to source information in other Wikipedia articles, for example. I don't really want to discuss this any further at the moment; let's see how the sockpuppet investigation turns out. Deor (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But if an article is deleted just because of suspected sockpuppetry, that doesn't mean that the information, or the sourcing , within the the former article was ever invalid. It can still be a good source of vaild information or referencing, no?Pagetools (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Deor, I have just found out, by a little research on line, that you are one of the adminstrators who has an agenda against Barbaro-family subject matter. Here is a link proving that: [[1]].

• I do not appreciate to be involved in your agenda of removing all Barbaro-family subject matter pertaing to the Albergo branch- and I would appreciate if you leave me alone from this point forward. I felt it was a wee bit suspicious that you took notice in me after I did some legitimate organization to the Barbaro-family page. If your behavior continues, Wikipedia will be notifed of your unprofessional behavior. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia administrator, and I suggest that if you have any complaints about my behavior that you think require administrator intervention, you make them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Deor (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for spotting the Barbaro hoaxer this time. I have informed everyone that I informed the last time they were spotted and asked there and on your report for the variable IPs to be checked for more hidden socks. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind the next time the hoaxer tries it. Edward321 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is made up, you are calling people hoaxers just for the fun of it.

Edward 321 is another person talked about in that link too. You are just trying to cover your own backsPagetools (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a single bit of Barbaro-family info that I edited today that doesn't have appropriate linkage and sourcing- and all of the material that was removed from Wikipedia before from the Barbaro family page, also had legit sourcing- I back tracked the Barbaro family page and checked- its all sourced.Pagetools (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pound photograph

Thanks for solving the situation. I instinctually felt the picture-issue would work itself out. Thanks for solving copyright-issues/amending caption with Coburn attribution. The Coburn picture is much better than the mug-shot don't you think? Good job you placed the latter somewhere in the article though. As a student of Pound, I feel the change is for the better. Cheers. P.S. I appreciate your Germanic mythological references.Mooret2 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I never liked the use of the mug shot as the article's lead image, either, but the copyright status of the Coburn photo needed to be determined or else it would simply be deleted again. I didn't mean to sound antagonistic in my original message on your talk page; I was worried because the license tag you used for your upload was clearly inappropriate. Deor (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I just sort of put a random thing to get the photo uploaded. No worries. Cheers. Mooret2 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

apollo

a consensus has being gained on the discussion page 3 vs 1 in favour of roman names. we would like you to do the honours and put them on please. what a day for wikipedias decomracy and anti-bias projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.170.108 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deor u wanted a consensus to be made and now it has. Now you undo the unfair changes u made with the roman names or are u a spoilt little child who angry cause he lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.172.137 (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre

Hi Deor! There appears to be a discrepancy between the information in The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre article which you have contributed to or edited. The November 2008 Ofsted report and the article may not be referring to the same schools. Moreover, in an article about Heathfield School, Wolverley it is claimed that it merged with Bewdley. However, a website exists for a Heathfield school in Wolverly about an independent school on which there exists very little verifiable online information. There is clearly some confusion concerning these two schools and their affiliation. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre, improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Other Wikipedias as References

I saw that you reverted my edit to Americas because I referenced otehr Wikipedias. Granted, while "America's" status as either a continent with subcontinents, two separate continents, or a double-continent with different regions (as is described by the German encyclopedia) is rather controversial, if the different Wikipedias are not providing the same content, there is a genuine conflict as far as the subject matter is concerned. I will be posting the issue to Talk:Americas. TheUnixGeek (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)