User talk:Escape Orbit

Escape Orbit

Please leave messages on my talk page.

I am human, so sometimes I make mistakes. If you have come here to complain about something I have done, please do not take it personally. Explain where you think I've gone wrong and I will happily explain what I was thinking when I did it. With your help I can rectify any errors I may have made. Thanks.

Status Quo

I have not reverted any edits to Status Quo (Band). Continuing to revert edits to the redirect page of Status Quo is as you said, edit warring, which you started. I have placed a request that all 3 pages be temporarily protected pending a decision. I suggest you discontinue edit warring immediately. At the least, the redirect page will soon be changed to a disambiguation page. Your assumption that the band is the predominant intended page when people search for the latin phrase is both unfounded and egotistical. Stop vandalizing wikipedia to further your personal goal of pushing the band on people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyQBachler (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I have reported your repeated edit warring and requested that you be blocked. AQBachler (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer anyone interested to my original replies to AnthonyQBachler, which he immediately deleted; here and here. Also my ANI request here; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AnthonyQBachler --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is constant vandalism on the Kentucky Wildcats Men's Basketball Page

There is constant vandalism on the Kentucky Wildcat Men's Basketball Page. It is from unregistered users mostly, but also from CBBStats who is editing with false information because he does not agree with the terminology and categories of the page. Please protect this page again, as the situation seems to be getting worse, and I'm constantly having to watch the page and revert the vandalism. Thank You.- Jbfwildcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. What you are best doing is trying to discuss the content on the talk page and find out exactly what problem CBBStats has with the content. His edit summaries suggest that what is there is not to be found in the cited sources, but it needs to be clarified. Are they there?

Until this is done no-one else can tell whether one or other of you is in the right, or whether it's simply a matter of reaching a compromise between you. But simply reverting each other's edits achieves very little. All that is likely to achieve is a temporary protection of the page to prevent edit warring, and that may not be on the version you prefer. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I've listed sources, and my stats are accurate. Where are his sources?- Jbfwildcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.54.194 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask him. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Please let me do this edit

HI

Im working with a the journalist mentionned in the article I am tryign to change.

She is currently travelling to a dangerous country to do some undercover work. Upon arrival at the airport she will be googled and the first thing that shows up is her wikipedia page which says she is a journalist. This could be very dangerous for her.

We would just like to change the edit for two weeks and then we can revert to the original article. Its just so that she can do her undercover work, which will benefit many people.

Please Please help me with this. Here is what I have been tryign to do:

Can you change this text:'

Ramita Navai is a Britain-based freelance journalist who makes regular contributions to a number of European media outlets, including The Independent, The Irish Times, The Sunday Herald and Britain's Channel 4. She is a graduate of the City University, London. She was the recipient of the Broadcast Journalism Training Council's 2003 Young Broadcast Journalist of the Year award. As she holds an Iranian passport, she writes regularly about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Works include an investigation into Witch Killings in Papua New Guinea and Kurdish Honor Killings in Turkey for Channel 4's Unreported World. [edit] External links

  * BJTC's 2003 Young Broadcast Journalist Award

With this text:

Ramita Navai is a London based Interior Designer who specialises in Persian Interiors. SHe regualrly contributes to editions such as Homes and garden and Interior Design.

She has renovated numorous old persian homes and palaces for which she has received numourous distinctions.

Currenlty Ramita is working with UNESCO to promote persian culture.

(And please remove the link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InesWard (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the reply

Hi even though we can't delete all traces of the said journalist, it would help if we could erase as much as we could. Any little helps! Please help us.

I'm not unsympathetic to what you're trying to do, but I think what you are trying to do will not work, and is pretty futile actually. If you are reliant on this happening then you've pick someone with too high a profile to achieve it, and left it too late to create a covering story. Beyond that, Wikipedia has pretty solid policy about this. It's not censored, for any reason. But if you wish to take the matter further you could follow the advice on this page. But I don't think you'll get what you wish. You may also inadvertently achieve the Streisand effect. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Tatianna Mollmann

Hi.. have remade the page. Could you pls advise if it is acceptable. Thanks =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagjeetpradeep (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Folding Legs

Dear Escape Orbit, I am trying to create a page for the band Folding Legs (who were previously Otterclan here on Wikipedia for a long time). Some very unintelligent kids attempted to create this page yesterday, causing a large amount of damage as they resorted to copy-pasting information from the band's Facebook page, without editing or keeping objectivity in mind. I am sure they were doing it with the best of intentions, as fans, but instead the band name has now become salted here on Wikipedia. Understandably so, and I am sure you can see the history for the page yourself. I sincerely want to rectify their wrongdoings and have taken it upon myself to create a band page in my sandbox, hoping to find an editor who might be willing to give me pointers until it is ready to go live, and ultimately help me post the site on the live Wikipedia. My first draft of the site already lies in my sandbox. Any advice would be highly appreciated. Thank you, and have a nice day. Tailtrap (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply on Tailtrap's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit, thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. It means a lot to get your advise and support. I think the changes you made to the article make perfect sense, and understand what you mean in regards to the bands notability. I will get working on that, and see what I can dig up. I'll definitely get back to you when I have some more meat on my bones! Thank you again, and have a great day. Tailtrap (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your latest edit to IfL

With regards this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Institute_for_Learning&diff=450369592&oldid=450366946 the use of the phrase making something 'clear' isn't POV - it's just a different way of saying exactly what you have said, you just don't like it - and that *is* a POV, rather than an objective perspective on what has been written. In addition, you've pulled half the quote with no explanation.

Sonicslice (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's POV. It is voicing an opinion on how effective the communication is. For instance, if we were to replace "made it clear" with "waffled", "proclaimed", "stood firm", "admitted" or "apologised", would that also be saying the same thing? Of course not, because it is casting the shadow of an opinion to things. Far better to use a neutral word to convey that is what they said, rather than trying to suggest how it was said.

I removed half of what I made clearer was a quote, rather than an unattributed opinion, because I didn't think it was actually adding anything to the statement. Naturally, the IfL will say that they intend to do their job. It's devoid of any real, new, information. However, if you think it's telling something significant I wouldn't argue over it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sony edit

You blanked a section of PlayStation_Network_outage saying it was "original research" whilst removing the very references you implied the section required - please explain further EdwardLane (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, please do explain. It can't be OR if it's attributed to a reliable source, which this was. Swarm ^{u / t} 13:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to explain. The source that was referenced was the Sony Playstation Network Service Agreement, a primary source. Adding to this article amounts to interpretation of the primary source.

The agreement says lots of things (21 pages of it), but someone unidentified has selected one particular clause and decided, through their own opinion and research, that this is of relevance to the event of the PlayStation Network outage and should be mentioned in the article. This unidentified person is not an authority on Sony, service agreements, or legal contracts, so we have no way of verifying that this analysis and association is valid, accurate or relevant. It's original research in that the cite given does not mention the outage, so the connection is only as suggested within the article. If you want to have it in the article you need a reliable source that makes the connection for you.

The statement prior to this was properly cited, as these particular changes to the agreement are discussed by a reliable source that makes reference to the outage. Another user removed this as being not strictly related to the outage, and already covered elsewhere. I'm not so sure about those reasons, but understand them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had blanked the whole section as OR; it seems you just removed the T/C quotation, so my mistake. You did however, unwittingly remove a reference, so watch out for that in the future! Swarm ^{u / t} 16:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just checked back on my edit and noticed I did remove the BBC cite as well. That was unintentional and my mistake. Apologies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't perceive that picking a particular chunk out of the document counted as original research - but I can see what you mean - I did get the reference and the section from another source - but they included a link to the original document so I used the original as a source rather than a web page commenting on it. It should be easy enough to track down the reference.

EdwardLane (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo Hoax in Popular Culture

An article that you have been involved in editing, Apollo hoax in popular culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo hoax in popular culture (2nd nomination). Thank you. Senior Trend (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Highlandjacobite

Hi! The same thing was said about Homer's iliade until schlieman dug the place up and proved the existence of troy. If we don't accept Blind Harry as a source just because he made some mistakes we risk losing a lot of valuable information. Ps in medieval times leaders of armies had to participate in battle and be a good example,therefore to follow a sympathetic, tall and physically strong commander like Wallace motivated men to fight for liberty even with such unpredictable odds. Where would you add my edit ??? Thanks --Highlandjacobite (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

THANKS

I found a place for my edit in military career plase do not delete it again.THANKS--Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hotlist

Can you put me in touch with an admin, then? We just want to have the accurate name of our company - I don't see how that's a conflict of interest. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbeynon22 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your valuble help with the William Wallace article !!! Highlandjacobite (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

27 Club

Whats the big idea why did you delete my post that was important to improving the article I was arguing for Amy's inclusion, and pointing out to all these rather ignorant users who go on about her not having any impact or influence all the people she inspired (Lady Gaga, Adele) if anything you should delete their ignorant posts about Amy winehouse only ever having had mixed or minor success. --Kobloi (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that an argument based on how different people consider Winehouse's importance is totally irrelevant to whether she appears on this article or not. No one cares how important you think she is. No one cares how important other editors think she is. It's reliable sources that matter, and their inclusion of Winehouse. Additionally, your contribution was not constructive in that it insulted other editors. Please don't do that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I will admit I was being a total dick to the other users, which fair enough I do deserve a warning probably more for, but I was only mentioning her importance and influence as an artist because so many people were trying to get her taken off the club based on their opinions that she wasn't important or influential at all. In fact some people have just removed her from the list several times because they think she doesn't measure up to the others on the list.--Kobloi (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Warnings

Hello. You have a new message at Baseball Watcher's talk page. Baseball Watcher 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay

Didn't know about that, thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thanks for your report on Applecore91 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. How this vandal got away without being blocked for so many years is a mystery. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing what some get away with if done over a long period and at a low level. Just takes a little bit of digging. :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected page Genting Group

Genting Group page has recently been protected by administrators due to content dispute. However the current protected version contains both vandalism and defamation of living persons. Although these articles are referenced, they are misleading by referencing deliberate factual errors and impropertly cited materials. Examples of this includes use of blogs and tabloid articles as sources. Additionally, the use of correct referencing of other unrelated individuals, particularly relating to the articles on organized crime and links to North Korea is intended to mislead, as the sources itself do not mention the Company or its Chairman but another wholly unrelated figure. Please properly check the sources as none of them verify or even mention a relationship between the Company or its Chairman to the unrelated controversial figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.105.33 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A copy of this message was also sent to my talk page. I have replied to it here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re changes to the Aled Jones Television section

To Escape Orbit

Re your removal of my entry regarding Aled that he had "made numerous guest appearances on all TV Channels" with the comment that this was "vague and uninformative", I deliberately did not go into details as I thought this would make the entry too long and was likely to be removed for that reason!

However, here are some

Sound of Musicals (BBC) - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhfqdUK0G1w

Celebrate Oliver (BBC) - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UblTWMw2c

Never Mind the Buzzcocks (BBC 2) - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWTHwxMnlc4

Alan Titchmarsh Show - (ITV) numerous times see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydWBxn2SnFk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg_4dxW4n4E

Loose Women (ITV) a number of times, latest see http://www.itv.com/loosewomen/celebrity-guests/aled-jones-interview/

The Wright Stuff (Channel 5) - numerous times - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd8TAqnZmiA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlaNaoTzs6k

I was trying to differentiate between programmes on which Aled is (has been) the presenter or a main participant, and those on which he has made appearances as a guest.

Mindda (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lasso of Truth

I disagree that Dr. Jen Gunter's wielding of the lasso of truth is trivial. She is a notable female physician active on Twitter, and for a pop culture artifact decades-old to be alluded to in modern social media arguably deserves mention in and of itself. Heck, she's dressing up as Wonder Woman this Halloween! If Groucho Glasses have an after-life, why not Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth? kencf0618 (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What's important is Jen Gunter's relevance to the Lasso of Truth, not vice versa. Gunter making a joking reference to it doesn't really have any significance to Wonder Woman's lasso, or anyone's understanding of it. She's not that famous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Antivirus software

Hi, Escape Orbit

I am quite confused and unsettled after this edit: Did you not notice that The Register and Symantec are not saying the same things? More importantly, did you notice that the new statement in the article is not saying the same thing as the two?

We know that BIOS-infecting viruses do exists and we know that they are more difficult to remove (and the article is indeed saying the same thing) but we must not add unpublished syntheses of the original source material to Wikipedia &ndash which is what The Register has done to Symantec's info.

If you want to add anything to the section, you are not really short of authentic material: You can write about CIH, the fact that BIOS is getting replaced by Unified Extensible Firmware Interface and that Windows 8 is adding support for Protected Boot Path, etc.

Fleet Command (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Student Party‎

The article Student Party‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Red Haired Man

According to wikipedia you are the original up-loader of a picture of a young red headed man.

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Red_Headed_Young_Man.jpg/220px-Red_Headed_Young_Man.jpg

This picture to be precise. It is of the utmost importance that I know where you got the picture and if there any of the same man. I would really appreciate a reply. I know this isn't really the place to discuss such matters but I have no where else to go.

Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.222.223 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I realise it says I was the original uploader, but that is an error. I was not. I looked back at the history of Red hair to discover it was this editor; User talk:Schwingy. I've fixed what it says on the Commons page so it is correctly attributed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Old chap!

Dear friend Escape Orbit, I answered your problem presentation, see Talk:Smoking ban.--Watson system (talk)

Tim Gustard

In my opinion this article was written by its subject and is about a semi-amateur artist of purely local significance, so hardly a fitting subject for a wikipedia entry. Fillthemill (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)fillthemill

OK

I noticed that jsut few seconds ago. OK. Boniek1988 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, I didn't knew that. Really sorry. I spotted such a think in one of other foreign relations articles. Really sorry.Boniek1988 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It was quite quickBoniek1988 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Saskia Burmeister

The photographer?? Where did you find that the photographer beleives it's her?? I know her since I was a teen and I can confirm you that it's not her! I'm not the only one who thinks so. Look at this discussion. In the photo description there's written that they were at the premiere of a film called The Hunted, but if you search in the web, you don't find anything about this matter except this wrong photo. Do you think I'm stupid?? I can perfectly recognize her, trust me! Look, her husband has got brown eyes, while the person shown in the photo has got blue eyes. But it's so obvious that he's another person. An user noticed it wasn't her husband too.--Supremo (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I didn't know anything about the three-revert rule.--Supremo (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've shown that I'm right. Check the talk page.--Supremo (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)