User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 3
Re David Ferguson (impresario)
We apologize if you feel we are "hectoring" you. We understand it is of little interest to you, but we are the victims of untruths on this page. We understand that Wikipedia is comprised of volunteers. We appreciate the good work you all do. We made a point of never making any personal attack on you, while our lives are being distorted by disreputable assertions on Mr. Ferguson's page.
We are quite versed in American Law. We are asking you what we need to do to refute the false assertions on this page. We have no personal agenda other than the right to provide the truth, and nothing but the truth.
We merely want to know what is the acceptable procedure to state verifiable statements which refute what Ferguson and his writers have presented as fact. We are not moving forward because we do not want our IP blocked.
We are asking for help and all we are told is to read the rules (which we read before posting what you removed). We are asking how to proceed other than being relegated to side pages while Mr. Ferguson's page stands as truth. It can can be readily proven to perpetuate myths about hard-working people whose history, work and LIVES he has damaged.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ALSO, we are not the first ones to object to the comments. We think that is a big red warning sign that Mr. Ferguson has a pattern of not presenting the truth. We are not in any way associated with anyone else who has made comments, on his page or the side pages.
Have a good day and we mean that! Thank you again, in advance, for your help.
Re David Ferguson (impresario) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damesmartypants (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The page uses Ferguson's own interviews to verify his info! Isn't that in violation of your policies?
You are denying others the right refute this page's numerous distortions and exaggerations. If links to published books (not self-published), reputable websites, and footnotes provided, will that be enough? May I post scans of legal judgments and government documents to verify statements?
You allow Ferguson's statements, conclusions, assertions and inferences to remain without citations. How can you justify that while removing our detailed refutations?
You claim we are violating his rights, but what about our rights? He distorts our history, lives and work and misquotes our books, magazines, interviews and other sources, but you delete our input? It's OUR living biographies and accomplishments which he is distorting.
Much of what is stated on this page is refuted by many third parties PRIOR to this page being posted. Yet his version stands and our comments removed?
For example, he claims management of certain rock groups, whereas various books, documentaries, interviews and sites all state someone else managed that group during the time frame and events he claims as his work. Or that he managed a group, but during a different time frame than he states. There's no verification on his end, and when we posted accurate but different dates, you removed our info?
Doesn't your removal of our information violate Wikipedia's policies, when we provided far more specific info than the original writer?
You removed text which was very detailed as to specific events, persons, places, photos, books and websites available to verify the new notations. Although he did not sign his page, original input was provided by Ferguson to his writer(s). Much is lifted from ifuc.org and other sites supervised by Ferguson.
By allowing only his version to stand, you are perpetuating the errors purported by Ferguson, without verification from him. His minimal footnotes referring to books don't provide specific quotes nor give page numbers, thus not substantiating his text.
Everything we posted can be proven in a court of law. But we are artists and musicians, without the funds to take him to court.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Damesmartypants (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Re vandalism
This IP has over 100 users associated with it. Please can you give us a clue as to what act of vandalism occurred and we will seek to resolve the situation. We see you reverted it but we don't know what it was that was reverted? 193.195.92.146 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Re: vandalism
Thanks for letting us know. This certainly looks like someone messing around. We will investigate this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.92.146 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Matthew S. Thomas
This page is true. He is a great basketball player and is going to be a great basketball player in the NBA. Why would you propose this deletion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballkid9836 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The Dead Detective
In what possible way could my short, simple article briefly outlining the series premise and bibliography be construed as 'blatant advertising'? Aside from an ellipses, I can't remember saying anything even mildly complimentary or, for that matter, derogatory about it. --6afraidof7 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
On years articles
Hi, I have been wondering if awards should be unlinked or not. While Nobel prize has more links to sub prizes, the other prizes don't. Such as the Templeton Prize on the article 2000. So what should be used? (On WP policies, links are allowed in subtitles if the whole title is a link.) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Seduction Community articles
Hi, thanks for watching out for the quality of seduction community articles. Next time you find one that is questionable, I would really appreciate it if you left a message on the talk page for a week or so to give editors a chance to improve it before an AFD. Sometimes, we see articles sounding promotional, POV, or blatantly lacking sources like David X. However, in some cases (unlike with David X), the articles can be improved to a keepable state with a bit of work. --SecondSight (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
imdb copyright violations
Hello. Rather than tag these articles for deletion, simply removing the synopsis is a better alternative. The rest of the stub has very little info but it's still a perfectly ok stub. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the copyright violations don't really need to be expunged from the history, especially in cases like these where the amount of text is very small and the content copied is very widely available to start with. The stubs resulting from removing the synopsis are not, as you seem to think, useless. For one, film stubs are picked up by bots and members of WikiProject Films are continuously expanding the shortest stubs. They can't do that if the stub is deleted. And they're certainly not "essentially empty directory listings, without the slightest hint of why the subject is worth writing about". Note that the synopsis is in fact completely irrelevant in terms of notability of a certain film. Even after removing the synopsis, the stubs you're trying to delete still list the film title, director, year of production, stars. That's not a lot of info but this is what a stub is. They also have incoming links which makes it likely that someone will expand the stub and most include a link to the imdb which makes it easy for readers to get more info there. I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOTDIRECTORY: stubs, even stubs with very very thin info are important. See Ailleville for a good example: stubs on French communes were carefully created by a semi-automatic process run by Dr. Blofeld and some, such as Ailleville have seen some action since. This is exactly how the wiki works. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
|
year pages
Are you referring to the ones I self-reverted a few minutes ago? I did them by mistake, having strayed onto them in an adjacent nav-box. Tony (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- In future, don't waste my time. Tony (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad your time was wasted. Next time, express yourself more clearly to save me needless trouble rather than accusing me, and I'll thank you for pointing out my mistake. As it is, I withdraw my thanks expressed earlier. Aggression usually ends up rebounding, as it has for you in this case. Tony (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Grant Foster
I've raised an objection to his deletion. I don't know the man, but I do know the 'Liverpool competition'. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Date linking in Emmett Till
Just a heads up, this practice is deprecated nowadays, see WP:UNLINKDATES, in fact I delinked the dates in this article a week or so ago. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually this is cookie
But thank you for the warm welcome. Could you explain why my comments have to be deleted?? I did not do anything to you, and for that matter why do you keep on calling me kk?? I really am a different person. I am kola. Killkola is my friend tims name in a game we play and he tries to get everyone to chase me. Hence. his name. Anyways. Thank you for the welcome....4twenty42o (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
yea.. but thats crap and i think you know it... But no matter4twenty42o (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Man you must be really paranoid or hate kk.. Did he steal your wife or something? Or is all this because of that Arthashastra non-sense? I bet you hold grudges for a long time. Its sad really 'cause i did not do anything wrong. I just left myself signed into wikipedia at work. I had no idea kk was gonna use it to harass you. But, thats life i suppose. I am not trying to attack you. I really dgaf, but what exactly were you hoping to do by coming here. 3 days after i reverted a comment i made and someone else undid that revision, you come by to... what exactly? Let me know you are paranoid and think i am someone i am not? Or perhaps you wish to goad me into a fight? It seems rather petty. Immature, if you will.
I really do not have a problem with you. I have seen what you do on here. Its rather noble and quite respectable. Kind of sucks my buddy doesn't like you. BUT I AM NOT HIM. And thats between you two.
As far as violating an indefinite block goes. I should not have been blocked to begin with. But i do like it here and i am not and have not caused any problems. i would just as soon make a new name than fight the powers that be over something as silly as a name. Cheers mate.. 4twenty42o (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea thats the game we play.. I am not going to argue with you. Its obviously pointless to even attempt to reason with you. I can see now why kk likes harassing you. You are nothing more than a cyber bully. Have a wonderful time banning me or reporting me or reverting my edits just because you can. Because we both know you dont care what i type, you will try to find a reason to get rid of it just to be a dick. Like i said i dgaf and i am most definately not on a set schedule.See you around i am sure. 4twenty42o (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha ok im going to wash my hands of you. please take some time off and find yourself. Take whatever steps you feel you need to take. Template:User DGAF 4twenty42o (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Calendar pages
OK. So how come September 11 is being treated specially? I know the WTC bombings are important. I think that should be in the intro too. You just reverted the Lisbon earthquake. Are you seriously thinking that the destruction of two buildings is more important than a 9.0 earthquake which destroyed an entire city plus most of its inhabitants? Wallie (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Calendar. (media coverage is not that important - it is very local in nature) No. I didn't say that September 11 was not important, and you know it - look at my comments on the Spetember 11 page. It also depends on where you are watching television. There are many many events considered important. It is a matter of opinion. Anyway, if you do a search on September 11 and then November 11, you get more hits for November 11. If you really want an important date, try May 1! Wallie (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you are getting a little upset here. You are also drifting off subject. You are trying to attack me on a peronal basis, or at least trying to present a false impression of my intentions, rather than trying to solve the problem. September 11 is being treated as a one off special case. This is not the only "special" date. If you think it is, then I would think that you really do not want to discuss things. Wallie (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
More. On your most recent outburst. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. I can see that you are used to bullying others, but it won't wash with me. I have not used bad faith, or even reverted anything. You are reverting what I have said, not the other way around. Wallie (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
re your: At some point, I'm going to have to start keeping track of the bad-faith tactics as you keep rolling them out. I now can add to the list groundless accusations of some sort of bias [1] and telling outright untruths [2]. Your edit-warring is bad enough without your resorting to an arsenal of bad practices. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing biased or untrue about what I stated in these articles. That was not my intention anyway. It is you that is edit warring! You are reversing my edits. I have NOT reversed anything of yours, and you know it. Wallie (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the September 11 article. It mentions FOUR points. I try to bring in only one to other dates, and you won't allow it.
ARTICLE DETAILS:
It is usually the first day of the Coptic calendar and Ethiopian calendar (in the period AD 1900 to AD 2099).
The terms September 11th, 11th September, 11 September, and 9/11 (pronounced "Nine-eleven") have been widely used in the Western media as a shorthand for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon in the United States of America.
In other places of the world the media also use it as shorthand for other events; for example, the September 11, 1973 Coup d'État in Chile is referred to as "El 11 de Septiembre" or "El once" ("September 11" or "The eleventh" in Spanish) as shorthand for the Coup events; September 11 is also Enkutatash or New Year's Day in the Ethiopian calendar.
Thanks. Wallie (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please centralize this discussion at WT:DAYS. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes
Yes, there is a reason - a misplaced click. Stupidity or carelessness, your choice, but not an intentional revert. -Nunh-huh 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
DJIA point changes
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Looks like I have to call you on a WP:3RR violation. — X S G 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear, you still have an option in order to avert being blocked. — X S G 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected... 3RR is for people who have performed more than three reverts. You're doing fine if you don't revert these pages again today. — X S G 10:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Date page intro discussion
Please help us keep the conversation moving forward by providing a response to the question that was asked of you at Wikipedia_talk:DAYS#Agreement.3F. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi - Can you please delete the first paragraph of your recent comment at WT:DAYS? I understand you and Wallie have some history, but regardless of who started it I'm asking you to stop it. Just be cool. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
why?
Hello! Would you tell me the problem eith my edit? Thank you!Baxter9 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Date pages
Hi. You are obviously upset with some of my changes to the date formats. Can you tell me why? My main concern about the dates is that they should be "culture neutral". In other words, particular dates have more significance for some people than others. I think the issues here are to do with what country you were born in and what age you are. For example, an older person might consider World War 2 dates, like June 22 to be of great significance. Note that in certain non Western countries, June 22 needs no explanation, whereas the date is unimportant elsewhere. An even older person might consider November 11 or April 25 to be important. A younger person might be concerned mainly with 21st Century events. Wallie (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- This response violates Wikipedia:Civility and is completely uncalled for. I've asked you two nicely to work this out. Now I'm telling you that further violations of this policy will come with consequences, up to and including being blocked. Consider this a level 3 warning from an admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is not 'uncalled for', as it was a simple response to the further self-serving nonsense and falsehoods placed by him on my talk page (note especially the word 'response': who, exactly, is baiting whom?). Perhaps your warnings ought to be aimed at the instigator--the one pestering me with nonsense, personal attacks, and pushing a personal POV--instead of myself, and perhaps you ought to outline for him the very simple and proper steps necessary for him to be in line with civility policy, which I've already explained and which you'll note he has refused to do. No stern warnings for him, funnily enough, though he certainly has no compunction about ignoring your warnings regarding mind-reading. Finally, perhaps you'd care to point out where providing facts about someone else's behaviour violating civility policy--instant assumptions of bad faith, obsessive edit-warring in place of actual discussion, flat misunderstandings (at best) of regular policy and ordinary factual incorrectness--constitutes some sort of egregious mis-step, or, especially, at any point, where any of it is misleading, exaggerated, or false. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Incivility is never called for. I don't care what you privately think about other editors, but you MUST NOT characterize them or their edits as (for example) "self-serving nonsense". I asked you above to stop it. You said you would if he would. Not quite the response I was looking for, but OK. If you read his talk page, you'll see I've asked him the same thing. Since then I've seen you but not him violate the civility policy. If he does, I'll give him the same warning I gave you. It doesn't matter who started it or who the instigator is. You'll both stop it. Understand? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Can we please start over again? I just think the calendar pages should be standardized somehow. There should be no "special cases", as other editors will introduce their own special cases, and then there could be disagreements. I still think that the intros should be cleared with a disambiguation page, if needed. As far as POV is concerned, we all have our opinions. You do, and so do I. Wallie (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the president elect as the nominator has withdrawn from the AfD. While this does not always warrant a closure of the AfD, the article in question (United States Office of the President-Elect) has substantially changed in such a way that a closure is warranted in my opinion. If you wish, you can renominate the page for AfD, but the concerns would surely have to be different. Thanks. DARTH PANDAduel 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2008
Please use the talk page and try to help come to a reasonable consensus. Two on one does not make a consensus. Neither does picking on one incident. Coming to a compromise, however, and establishing standards for conclusion for like events is a consenus, and that has not been achieved yet. I have proposed we include only those school shootings in which 5 or more people are killed. I would appreciate if you would participate in this discussion instead of engaging in an edit war. Thank you. Abog (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)