User talk:Onorem/Archive 9

	Archives
	2006 Archive
	Jan 2007 Archive
	Feb-Mar 2007 Archive
	April-Jun 2007 Archive
	July 2007 Archive
	Aug-Sept 2007 Archive
	Oct 2007 Archive
	Nov-Dec 2007 Archive

Onorem♠Dil

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page, unless there is already a section related to your message.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will reply on your talk page unless you request I reply here.
I reserve the right to edit the style, not substance, of comments left for my own readability. (punctuation, spelling, capitalization)
If I do edit your comments, a diff will be provided showing the changes.

Message from Much2much

Greetings Onorem I am troubled by your edit I put a external link on Neal Walk's, Al Jefferson's and Ronny Seikaly's pages that clearly added more value to the page I am a big fan of the NBA draft and follow it frequently. I put a site many that many draftfreaks follow draft history which is www.thedraftreview.com. Can you please tell me what or how this is considered spam how does this disrepect wiki. I donate to wiki on a financial level and I go through many NBA player profiles fixing errors so again please tell me what am I doing wrong so I can avoid doing it in the future. Because if I am being singled out becuase I am linking one website link on a few pages then I feel like this is the internet equilivent of being pulled by a cop just because I am black. So if I added sportsline here, NBAdraft.net here, draftexpress here then I would be okay? Respectfully I thought the idea of Wikipedia is to write collaboratively about everything through people all around the world. Instead it seems like to me it's okay only if somebody that I never met deems the information vital. The site I submitted is used by NBA personal all around the US because it's the only place on the internet to really understand NBA draft history. The even more frustrating thing with this is that I don't like being labled a spammer it's a black eye that I really find insulting. You never talked to me you never tried to find out if I was indeed spamming. What if I said to you that you puposely block links that don't put money in your pocket or that you accept brides from people? No I am taking the time to respectfully find out why you think this is instead of putting up on a bullentin like you have done to me. I like my clean rep on wikipedia I want to keep it this way. Much2much (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my reverts to trouble you. Your link addition looked very much like spam to me. You've now made about 120 edits. About 100 of them were for adding the link to thedraftreview to various articles, and 17 were used to write an article about that website's founder. Twice you removed information about Alec Kessler and his being buried in a dracula outfit. That's the only editing I can find that wasn't directly related to thedraftreview website. (although a link was added to that article as well) Plus, every time you added the link to an article's external links section, it was placed at the top. Your intentions may have been good, but your actions looked to be those of a classic spammer. I won't remove the link again, but I would ask that you try to contribute more than just links in the future. --Onorem♠Dil 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism to my user page

I have put a vandalism-4 tag on 24.231.163.232's user page, so feel free to report him for blocking the next time this user is disruptive. Thanks again for the catch. TechBear (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Message from Sergei Reynolds

Hello Onorem,

This is Sergei Reynolds in Moscow. I just received a red flag from you for ungentlemanly conduct, it seems. However, while I am 100% guilty of your charges, perhaps you can tell me how to remove material that is 100% slanderous to my name? Although I am not directly alluded to in the discussion, given that it is my position they are referring to, the connection would not require a rocket scientist to make. I sincerely request that the changes stand as I made them, or I will be forced to take this matter to a higher playing field. I have no problem with people adding or subtracting facts from The Moscow News website as they see fit, but when the changes involve unjustified personal attacks then I think things have gone too far. Thank You. Sergei -Sergei Reynolds (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Onorem, The comment I am referring to occurred in the discussion section, not the actual page, but since this site is accessible to the public, I believe that it is irresponsible to let libel stand. -Sergei Reynolds (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Onorem, Thank you for your attention and solving into this matter. I appreciate the assistance.

Best regards, Sergei Reynolds -Sergei Reynolds (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Police" article

My mistake on placing the external link in the "See Also" section.

Can you suggest the proper way to include the reference?

JacksonBeard (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)JacksonBeard

How is it being used as a reference? It's not an appropriate link per WP:EL if you're just trying to add the link. --Onorem♠Dil 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, used the wrong word...

Not a reference, rather a link.

I believe the link contains useful and relevant information related to the article topic "Police."

I originally posted the link under "External Links" and it stood for quite some time. I see that someone decided to remove "External Links" from the article, to whit "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

The site listed is designed to encourage interviews with police officers by members of the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonBeard (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add it as an external link. I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm guessing you'll have trouble getting a consensus to add it since it requires registration. --Onorem♠Dil 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the pointers and the links you sent.

JacksonBeard (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Jackson Beard

Thanks

Thanks for noticing the misplaced comment on my user page. =) When I find those kinds of misplaced comments, I will often move the comment over to the user talk page with a <small></small> note that I moved it. I also leave a message on the originator's talk page to alert them about the move so they can learn where to leave messages. I did answer the editor. He seems to be a rather enthusiastic fan of his favorite band that needs a little help on creating new articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it. The editor just got indefinitely blocked by another admin and then went out with a bang. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

thanx

thanx for looking over my user page as of resently. Its already on semi protection and keeps getting vandalised. Is there any way its protection can be increased. Let Me Know. YoursRealist2 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hey did you see this message?--Realist2 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot to respond yesterday. I can't change the protection level on your page myself. You might be able to get them to fully protect it at requests for page protection, but I doubt it since it's only been vandalized about 6 times since September. You also wouldn't be able to edit it yourself if protection was increased. Seeing how quickly the vandals have been reverted, I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. It looks like you've got a few quick editors ready to revert with your page on their watchlist. --Onorem♠Dil 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Hawk21

With respect, the reason those notices should remain in place on that sockpuppet's login, and the reason half a dozen editors reverted them back into place, is because their removal obfuscated the user's actions and vandalism, not least the fact of him vandalising editor's talk pages to make it look like the vandalism was carried out by an admin. If the notices stay in place, it helps the community to see what has been going on, rather than jump to the wrong conclusions and cause more rancor (obviously the sockpuppet's intention)--feline1 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If people care, they can check the history. Said as much on your talk before I saw that you'd left me a message. --Onorem♠Dil 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your understanding, support and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, Onorem (From Hudson Hawk's talk page history today, you can see that about half a dozen editors have attempted to reinstate those notices, not least for the reasons I explained to you).--feline1 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand that policy... --Onorem♠Dil 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you can pop along to the talk pages of the 6 editors involved who had unimous opinions of the way to proceed (after having dealt with the vandal all day), and explain to us all why we were wrong and you alone are right :) --feline1 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to go to anyone's talk page. WP:USER makes it perfectly clear, and the issue has been brought to AN/I numerous times. Warnings can be removed. I don't care if 6 of you didn't know (or care about) that, but replacing them has been considered wrong in the past and people have been blocked for it.

Side Note: I'd prefer in the future, if I have need to use your talk page, that you don't remove my comments with an edit summary like you used today. --Onorem♠Dil 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer you didn't slap blanket template warnings about 3RR on my talk page when I *wasn't* involved in an "edit war" (tidying up after vandals is not the same as edit warring) and the template hilariously has an admonition to "seek consensus" in it (when you were undoing the consensus of half a dozen other people trying to clear up that vandal's mess). But please, this really isn't worth arguing about - can't you see this is exactly the sort of strife that vandal was seeking to cause in the first place?? (unless Hudson Hawk21 is actually a secret 'letting off steam' vandalism sockpuppet you keep for occasionally ridding yourself of winter Monday blues...? lol ;-) --feline1 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the template, but I knew the message would come out nicer that way after I'd been reverted twice for no good reason. Since you want to discuss consensus, consensus is that editors can remove warnings from their own talk page. 6 of you don't like that consensus with respect to this particular editor's page, but it's still the consensus on Wikipedia. And smiley face and lol or not, your joke isn't funny. --Onorem♠Dil 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that this isn't worth arguing about, so feel free to disengage at any point. --Onorem♠Dil 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Australian Peach Squirrel

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I agree with your edit summary, and I have gone on ahead and deleted accordingly. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely works for me. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finishing my move

Oops! Thanks. :D I guess I shouldn't "drive" while distracted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Goosesbumps page

Onorem, the article that you keep deleting is written by an editor with specialist knowledge. Please do not delete it again. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now if you could just prove that before you add it, there'd be no problems. --Onorem♠Dil 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been disputed in the talk thread, and the point still remains that the article is submitted by an editor with specialist knowledge. Further, the article is neutral. There is no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add a citation

-15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)~ Jonamatt

The point remains that consensus is against the addition, no proof has been provided regarding any type of specialist knowledge, and the text is nowhere near neutral. There are 3 reasons right there to delete it. --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been cited, which does provide verification for its source. If you wish to purchase a copy of the anthology, you may do so. If you delete the article because you do not agree with the anthology, you delete the article because of your own point of view. I would like you to tell me what is not neutral. I can find nothing of that nature. If the people on the talk page dispute the same non-existent issues, then their argument is just as weak as yours. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonamatt (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be cited to a RELIABLE SOURCE. If the "Scholarly Review of Goosebumps." exists, it would appear to basically be a self-published fanclub newsletter. That's not a reliable source. You should be blocked for your disruption, but I can't be bothered to find the time to file the report. Please do not add your opinion into the article after someone else reverts you, which will very likely happen soon enough. --Onorem♠Dil 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

how is it vandalism? its fucking true!!!! Cell2 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

please refrain from watcjing my page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quako5 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since that's not going to happen...a better idea would be for you to stop vandalizing. --Onorem♠Dil 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

jazzlineb

dude jazzlineb is my friend! he doesn't care! he knows me in real life! he doesn't care, he knows i'm jokin'. Cell2 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oopsie!

sorry i meant to links to pens but a very awkward mispelling occured and i'm very sorry about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepoo44 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Every other edit you've made so far tends to make me not want to believe you. --Onorem♠Dil 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Maric

this article was unfairly deleted without a fair trial i feel strongley about the descision and i am appealing the decison to delete it i think that you research Dejan Maric and see what reliable sources you find. --Ultra20 18.30, 14 january 2008 (UTC)

why you editing my talk page for??

what are you some kind of wikipedophile vandal??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnionHorse (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I can understand the confusion, I am not, in fact, a wikipedophile vandal. I'm just a regular old vandal patroller. I happened to come across your page because you happen to be a vandal. --Onorem♠Dil 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What did I vandal?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnionHorse (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sylar, Eric Clapton, Redwall, Wikipedia‎, Larry Sanger, and Wikipedia:Wikipedians. --Onorem♠Dil 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

the first three were good edits imo. ps - i got sinebot to stop trolling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnionHorse (talk • contribs)

If you're going to opt out, you could at least start signing your posts.

If you have nothing useful to post, please don't bother responding anymore. --Onorem♠Dil 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

just tell me what was wrong with sylar clapton and redwall and i'll be on my way thanks onionhorse

Adding renegade as a description is not consistent with maintaining a NPOV. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

what you signing my comments for "SineBob"? who do you think you are??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnionHorse (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that I'm a bot, and most people don't expect replies when they ask me questions. --SineBot (OMGFORGERY)

Peter Hain

"Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Peter Hain. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Onorem♠Dil 12:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)"

//This fact was referenced with a link to the BBC website, it was not offensive and was merely stating the truth. I know a source in the House of Commons who has confirmed this revelation and the story did appear for a short time on the BBC news site, but was since removed after it was deemed irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRNSY90 (talk • contribs)

Message from User:CAIRNSY90

Why do you spend so much time editing wikipedia, I find it a bit sad. Don't you have any other interests, you seem to be on 24/7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRNSY90 (talk • contribs)

I happen to be lucky enough to have a job that allows me to surf casually for much of the day. At home, I usually avoid this place. It's just something to kill the time. So what's your excuse? --Onorem♠Dil 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to make wikipedia a better and more place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRNSY90 (talk • contribs)

We obviously have different definitions of better. --Onorem♠Dil 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts of opinion

Do you know the Wikipedia policies? Facts of opinion are neutral points of view. It is a fact of opinion that Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest... because it is a FACT that he is considered by all major, credible and expert sources the greatest. That is the whole point to fact of opinion. Try reading the discussion page. This is the same as can be seen on Wayne Gretzky's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.4.169 (talk)

You don't need to make the argument to me. I agree with you. The consensus on the current wording was reached during the featured article discussion. There is no currently consensus to change it. --Onorem♠Dil 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't reach a "consensus" on Wikipedia policies.. It's not people's opinions that decide it. You obey Wikipedia policies. They're already set principles. Feel free to try to change the policy on facts of opinion at its actual discussion page, not on an article. Stating his description any other way in fact makes it a less informative and less accurate article, and understates the person's historical importance.--129.105.4.169 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is a Wikipedia policy. There is nothing "wrong" with the way the wording was. I won't revert you again, but I'm guessing your version won't stick around very long without more people being convinced on the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts of opinion is an overruling policy. Why? Because it's a FACT. "Consensus" is OPINION. And I don't know how they would be convinced, what with the complete lack of a valid argument being made against him being the greatest...--129.105.4.169 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if you've linked to it on the talk page discussion somewhere. Could you give me a link to the "Facts of opinion" policy page? --Onorem♠Dil 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view articles are the most relevant, particularly these sections.

[edit] A vital component: good research Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.

The NBA, AP and ESPN are the most authoritative sources in existence. They all agree on one thing. Jordan is the greatest.

[edit] Balance When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

And yet they don't contradict one another, they all agree.

Yes, the statement made on the talk page might be good for a fresh starting point. It's similar to Gretzky's article. The NBA encyclopedia says he's the greatest, so it's easily sourceable.--129.105.4.169 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good argument to make on the talk page. I almost cut/pasted it there myself on your behalf. I still think there are some stubborn editors who are going to fight hard against this one. --Onorem♠Dil 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rooftopbleachers

The photo is incorrectly labeled. The left field stands (absent in this photo) were built several years prior to the 1929 World Series. The photo is probably from about 1910. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was from opening day, 1909. Case closed. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Guess I shouldn't have assumed the article caption was correct. Glad to see it's all straightened out now. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Onorem♠Dil 12:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I often complain about arbitrary tags-for-deletion, in this case it worked out well, as it compelled me to find out what was going on. I did contact the original uploader, but he had no clue what year it was from, just the website it came from. It's like Sherlock Holmes sometimes. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppetry?

Preliminary heads-up: 75.33.229.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is exhibiting some characteristics of sock-puppeteer TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (i.e., two edits to articles he frequents, including an edit restoring his changes, together with a TyrusThomas4lyf-like edit summary). Not sure if two relevant edits is enough to warrant a checkuser request. -- Myasuda (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just based off their last two edits and whois information from the last three IPs to edit List of career achievements by Michael Jordan, I'd say a checkuser shouldn't be necessary. Appears to be from the same range as several of his other suspected IPs. --Onorem♠Dil 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Userpage

Some of you administrators must be the biggest tight asses in the world. I didn't know you had to have sources for userpages, what the hell good are they? As long as there is no unnecessary profanity or inappropriate subject matter, what is the big deal, userpages are not commonly or frequently viewed or even listed, but then again you have to worry about law suits, correct. I have sources and external links sighted on my Buffalo crime family and Joseph Todaro Sr. pages, which I;m sure you will now find a reason to erase. My userpage basically references the same people and if you don't know that every person mentioned on my userpage has either been profiled in books, government and law enforcement reports and many newspaper articles, not to mention all of them, dead or alive have criminal records or have been imprisoned for various crimes ranging from gambling, loansharking, narcotics and even murder.

Every person mentioned on my userpage who is still alive has been profiled on Buffalo news station and the newspaper or Southern Ontario news stations and newspapers a number of times, I and most of the people who follow the Buffalo crime family and their affiliated groups now this. It's public and common knowledge these people are convicted criminals in most cases and if they haven't been convicted or imprisoned, they have certainly been indicted! The reason I know this is because I was born in Buffalo and have lived in Southern Ontario for over 25 years, going back and forth over the border for over 30 years, I've studied and researched local organized crime, in fact I was involved for over 15 years!

Anyway, I give up, go ahead erase what you want, but do me a favor, erase the whole page! If you don't know this, about 90% of every organized crime article on the website has some inaccurate or incorrect information regarding the main subject or related events. The Organized Crime/Mafia section on the website is a joke. I've spent many hours trying to correct mistakes and give the readers accurate and up to date information, but I'm tired, I give up. You guys do 15 years of research and then try and correct all the mistakes for unappreciative readers, like I said I give up. I created the Buffalo crime family usepage because a Real Deal form member asked me to, but I'm sure he has all the information recorded or he saved the page by now.

Go nuts, erase it. No big deal, as much as all this gets on my nerves, once again I understand guidelines, regulations and the possibility of lawsuits. In fact Joe Todaro Sr.'s lawyers contacted a website I write for last year, the "American Organized Crime" website. I get understand, I get it, but like I said, erase the whole thing, but thanks for letting me know, that's special.

R.J. Rios —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Joe Shots (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. If you have sources, they need to be made much clearer. I understand that there are several problems with organized crime/mafia related articles. The BLP noticeboard has been aware of that, and they are likely to receive a major overhaul. --Onorem♠Dil 12:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly Review

Onorem, You have absolutely no right to delete the scholarly review page. As stated in the last addition to the talk page, the page in no way violates Wikipedia's rules. You must realize that the article is my an editor with specialist knowledge of the source, which is clearly allowed by Wikipedia. Further, the article should not be deleted because it contains valuable information, the deletion of which opposes the very purpose of wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.49.2 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Onorem, You have absolutely no right to delete the scholarly review page. As stated in the last addition to the talk page, the page in no way violates Wikipedia's rules. You must realize that the article is my an editor with specialist knowledge of the source, which is clearly allowed by Wikipedia. Further, the article should not be deleted because it contains valuable information, the deletion of which opposes the very purpose of wikipedia. Thank you. ~-- Jonamatt