Jump to content

User talk:Rrburke/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

about your open threats

first of all let me tell you that user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindys12345 posted the comments on my talk page about "abo" NOT ME!!Boxerhorse 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a clear threat: "I'll take you to AN/I and seek a long-term ban of your account" but i didnt post that comment at all...

Boxerhorse wrote: how is that "hostile and uncivil"? Let's take this from the top. A shouted ALL-CAPS edit summary in which you assert that another editor's ethnic background is a possible reason for a putative agenda motiviating their edit is repellent, prima facie hostile and abusive and simply won't be tolerated. In future you will assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that what motivates other editors is a desire to improve the article. Secondly, as to this: if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are racist because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherweise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil" - therefore you are racist... I think I've answered this adequately: it was your repugnant intimation that another editor's ethnicity is the reason for their contributions that is the basis for me characterizing your edit summary as hostile and uncivil. But as to this in particular: then you are racist therefore you are racist

also, CAPS does not necessarily mean 'shouting' as you interpret - ill report you for that interpretation too because i find it offensive - it merely meant to highlight that point...

OK - lets work through it - i at no time "intimiated" that the user was Middle Eastern - i merely asked... if you think you can make a compalint against me for stating thar you are RACIST for interpreting Middle Eastern ethnicity as "hostile and uncivil" then i can also compalin about you for stating that i am "hostile and uncivil" in the first place - you cannot have your cake and eat it too - first you misinterpret my comments and tell me im "hostile and uncivil" for asking someone is they are Middle Eastern, but its not ok for my to state that is "racist" - how can you call me "hostile and uncivil" but im not allowed to call you "racist" - it seems onsided to me... Hence, if you make an accusation that i am "hostile and uncivil" then i will also write you up at WP:AN/1... thats seems fair doesnt it.... Boxerhorse 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it ever occurs to you to make an accusation as stupid as that one anywhere on Wikipedia again, I'll write you up at WP:AN/I asking to have your account blocked. --Rrburke(talk) 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

and your threats will not intimidate users of Wikipedia - you cannot take yourself off on a fascist frolic and intimiade other users with threats because you misinterpret their comments... it IS racist to interpret a question about Middle Eastern as "hostile and uncivil" THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING MIDDLE EASTERN... had i asked "are you Australian" you would not have interpreted that as "hostile and uncivil" because you are racist towards one or the other - you are not consistent - it seems you think Middle Eastern is a "negative thing" that seems racist and i can make such 'observations' on Wikipedia without you threatening to have me blocked - your threats and intimidation are in themselves are cause for you yourself to be blocked Boxerhorse 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Rrburke/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Jkelly 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments in an edit

you sent me an message about the comment posted below:

"its OK to state that Middle Easterns were bashed but not white Australians??? AGENDA?? R U MIDDLE EASTERN?"

can you please explain where that comment is "hostile and uncivil"...

the article at present in the introduction states that Middle Easterns were "bashed" but when i attempted to balance the introduction and wrote that Australians were also "bashed" it was reverted - a clear antogonistic revert which unbalances the article...

therefore, as the revert unbalances the article, a rational and resonable conclusiuon is that there is an "agenda" being palyed out - how is that "hostile and uncivil"?

also, i have no non-neutral sentiments toward Middle Eastern people - therefore, i asked if the revert editor was Middle Eastern as that may be the source of the agenda - if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are racist because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherewise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil" - therefore you are racist...

TS Eliot Prejudice?

Hi, I noticed your removed a lot of material regarding Eliot and Jews with the note: Prejudice? I presume you meant the people making the comments you removed were prejudiced. However, this is not a reason for removing the comments, though it might be a reason for pointing out why they were making them. The fact that they made them is a reality and should be recorded from a NPOV. I'm not going to put them back, but maybe you should have another look. Tyrenius 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I don't know what happened there. It was actually User:Krestinky02.
Tyrenius 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Drake

Hiya mate it's the grave nearest in the shot and closest to the tree, very noce it is too, there is standard description on the front and the quote from his song on the rear. Cheers Robdav69 21:50, 6 August 2006

AFD[1]

Your opinion please. Thanks RaveenS

Andy Park (musician)

Why this page is for speeky deletion? There is no reason! Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it better like this? He has made a important contribution in the vineyard music, I think he deserve an article... Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for tagging so many not clearly notable bands as candidates for speedy deletion! We can use all the help we need with the deletion of bandcruft (although I disagree with you about Glass casket). Just one small thing: could you use an edit summary like "suggest deletion" or "db-band" when you tag? It makes it easier for people watching the entry to see that something important might happen to their article. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Christmas on the environment

Please see [2]. Wavelength 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your email address

Would you mind confirming it on Wikipedia under my preferences?  ;-) This is in regards to the message you left me yesterday. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been indefinitely blocked for obvious trolling, and I'll leave it at that due to the sensitive nature of this issue. Your email authentication may have failed if you clicked twice to send a confirmation email; give it a second try and let me know what happens! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Us versus Them

I'm sorry, I don't really see the "assertion of notability" there. We have an upcoming album with no label mentioned, and a planned tour that hasn't happened yet. They've been around since 1999. Myspace downloads don't count under the standards (and are unverifiable), and all bands claim an unspecified large fanbase. Nothing that seems to assert any qualification under WP:MUSIC. Fan-1967 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BCW Article

Hi,

Please could you create a new article for the BCW backyard wrestling federation. Thanks.

Martin Bean British Championship Wrestling (BCW) webmaster

Le Ballet deletion

Dion's Le Ballet is a single from her D'eux album that is the best-selling French album of all time. Dion in this album and song incorporate influences ranging from Continental pop and folk music jazz and '70s soul. I think it's a important song in her discography. It's considered a hit from her french career.

Tronix 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for letting me know. The answer is yes of course you can. In fact, always bear in mind that we're all here on a wiki. This means with a "few" well marked exceptions, you are free to edit anything you like. Nonadmins even quite often close things as wild as AFD debates (of course they cant do the deletion but that's what we're here for :) ). So, no doubt the post has gone now but absolutely, please edit whatever you can if it's going to improve or assist others. Keep up the great work! Glen 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Decision not to block 68.185.199.64

Being an IP, it is quite possibly shared. The returning vandalism was yesterday, and therefore not an immediate problem that needs dealing with now. As the article being vandalised was different it was not obvious that it was the same vandal (though looking more closely at the contribs I know see that it is possible). If it is clearly the same person returning and the IP doesn't appear to be shared, then yes I would block without further warnings, but if there is a reasonable chance this isn't the case a warning is more appropriate before a block. Petros471 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathon, not Johnathan

The name is correctly spelled "Johnathon", with an "o". This is the name given in every one of the recent media reports listed in the article, as well as the name used in the URL for the memorial website created by Johnathon's mother, who would presumably know best.

The "a" spelling is definitely what was used during the trial under the publication ban, but is not the correct spelling of his first name.

See for example this CBC story and note the various spellings [3]:

Johnathon Madden, had previously been known in the public eye only as "Johnathan."

So, I propose the reverse: we incorporate the content from Johnathan Madden into Johnathon Madden. We should maybe also mention the spelling issue somewhere, because I honestly didn't notice the difference when writing the article. --Saforrest 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: turning the stub into a redirect -- sounds good. As for the spelling discrepancy, I don't know. A couple of wild ideas occurred to me, but the most likely is simple error on the part of a court stenographer, or some media person. What's odd is that they did get the eccentric extra 'h' part right (i.e. not "Jonathan"). --Saforrest 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is odd that the media were so remarkably consistent in their spelling choice: any utility the misspelling might have had for hiding his identity would be vastly exceeded by simply calling him "John Doe".
On the other stuff, hmm, I'm from Dundas originally (though I only moved back to the Hamilton area recently). On coincidences, actually I live near James and Aberdeen, and bought my copy of today's Globe from a newsstand at St. Joe's. Certainly nothing to compare to your "small world" story, though! --Saforrest 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal 64.14.194.26 has returned

You said: "You previously blocked this user on Sept 27th for 48 hours. Since he has returned on Sept 29th he has made several nonsense edits and some blankings I am in the course of reverting. Perhaps you would consider re-blocking him for a longer period."

Done. --Yamla 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

No, I figured it out. The images are just like some of the other library of congress images, the image links are non-permenent. I added a link that I can be quite confident will lead you almost directly to the image until they change their system. --Kevin_b_er 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your concern about using "killed" in the main article -- I was actually aiming to flush out the removal tags, not specifically to revert changing the work "murder" back. Reviewing now, since there wasn't really any edit summary or discussion on the talk page about that change, I think it wasn't harmful. I agree your new wording is more appropriate for the context. Cantankrus 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments in the Einsatzgruppe article. I'm not sure if you saw, but our friend Nazrac decided to pay a not so assuming good faith visit to my talk page. Funny that my sole edit to the article is policing -- I must have forgetten that I was inducted into some conspiracy. :) Cantankrus 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per your request, just letting you know. Cantankrus 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Our friend Nazrac is back, this time commenting to me about an edit you made on the Einsatzgruppe article, I believe. I'm not sure if he is simply confused or thinks we are sock puppets, but I haven't edited that article in quite some time, not even on the talk page. It's quite amusing, with the same silly conspiracy sprinkled throughout. I'm not sure if his personal attack is centered on you or me, or if he's just confused as to which one is which. I thought I'd let you know. :) Cantankrus 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tony Judt

TJ wrote "anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me)" where me equals him, thus according to his own words he was accused of being anti-Semite. Also, from NYS article: "Judt have claimed that debate on the U.S.-Israel relationship is squelched by false accusations of anti-Semitism". Btw, I wonder if you could look at Talk:Tadeusz Hołówko where we were recently discussing the claims backed by sources citing sources citing sources being translated in each step :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a nice ref to include in the article, but you are right the wording was not correct. Feel free to readd it with better wording. Regarding TH, it's a case where one A quotes B quoting (or describing) C, where all other sources we have disagree with A.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx for the update!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kids on TV

Hey there! I found this article to assert just about enough notability that it toes the line of a non-speedy (since they've work with some notable people, and in a movie, and they have a large number of *shudder* google hits). However, I'm sure you can {{prod}} it, or maybe an AFD. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC) PS sorry I had approved you awhile a go but while sending out approvals the system crashed and I was unsure of who had recieved the proper welcome.[reply]

What version of VP do you have? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go that is the problem you are using VP 1.2.2 and I have approved you for 1.3. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your not going wrong, vp 1.3 is not "Officail" released but we are registering and moving people over from 1.2.2 if you look in my vp welcome that will have a link to the downloads. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Runtime Error - VP 1.3

Thanks a lot! VandalProof has long since stopped being able to work for me, but I'm eagerly awaiting the final release of 1.3 so I can try again! Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Semi-protection isn't about admin involvement in a content dispute but rather to deal with repetitive edits by individual who refuse to discuss changes on the talk page. The editor isn't adding any information, merely POV'ing existing information and removing others. Your response on the talk page is exemplary since is shows clearly the edits are strange and contentious. If he does it again without engaging in discussion then submit a request for semi-protection. You can do so here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. BTW your not [4] are you? I know that guy. --Deodar 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

No problemo. Sometimes I follow behind AntiVandalBot [5] to try to clean up after those who are doing damage somewhat under the radar. Feel free to join in...until Tawker figure out how to bot the warnings as well. Thanks for the good work you have been doing.

Oh...while I am here, I use the following as my personal warning system, although I am sure you have your own:

==Editing Concerns==

#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~

#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

I like the way it makes it easier to tell that all 4 warnings have been given prior to a first block. Kukini 02:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked users

When a user has been indef blocked for vandalism it is often best to just leave the user's page alone. If the user writes junk or what not on it the user is at least not making a new account to vandalize. That said, there is no need to re-add personal attacks if another user has seen fit to remove them. JoshuaZ 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts in Israel article

Hi, RR. There's no serious doubt that the Palestinians were terrorised from their homes (when they weren't beaten from them, or, in a few cases, massacred in them). The evidence for it is ample, everyone seriously interested knows that it's true, the only problem is keeping it on view.
And I don't think there's any real argument for keeping some reference to this out of the article on Israel. Israel is practically defined by the problems it has with its neighbours, one cannot gloss over the events which started it.
Having said which, I'm not sure how to usefully contribute on that talk-page for the moment!
PalestineRemembered 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to add - other than to suggest the problem is even more acute than what you've described. Because if I was attempting to put "Palestinian POV" into this article I'd be saying "It makes no difference why they left their homes, they have an absolute legal and moral right to return to them". All I was actually doing with Morris and Khalidi was attempting to confront unsourced material that looks very much like propaganda.
There is one thing that fair-minded observers could do, which is to clarify whether Shmuel Katz is truly WP:RS. He appears to have been a militant (member of Lehi) and a professional propagandist. I think he's still alive, but he doesn't appear to have any qualifications, quotes from fairly well discredited others (particularily Joan Peters) and doesn't appear to have added anything to our knowledge of what happened. For instance, I see this block quote from him being repeatedly inserted at Palestinian refugee:
"The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."
There is so much else that's severely POV in that last article I don't know where to start! I'd really appreciate your advice on improving this article. Life is too short for edit-wars, yet that seems to be what I'm faced with if any of my (usually careful) work is to be included.
PalestineRemembered 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalSniper

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising

Hi there, I noticed your edit comment at "Lack of outside support" and took the liberty to revert. While generally you're right and the edit summary of the user you reverted suggested it's sort of a folk tale (my daddy told me once...), in this very case the info he added is neither controversial nor obscure. In fact it's easily verifiable. Just let me know should you want me to add some references. //Halibutt 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article in question is a splinter from the main Warsaw Uprising, which is not sufficiently sourced either, but will be in the future (there are more such tasks pending). //Halibutt 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bet :) But seriously, in the past we (I mean a group of Poland-related editors) have promoted several articles to FA status, some of them in the times when nobody added references to articles on WP. Now the standards have changed (improved) and it is quite a task to back-source, so yo say, all of our FAs. Among those on the top of the list are Virtuti Militari and Polish-Soviet War. I guess Warsaw Uprising goes next, though when I think of it now, we shouldn't have been dividing it in the first place. //Halibutt 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Protection of Palestinian refugee

Hi... I note that the version of Palestinian refugee you protected includes the long block quote which is the subject of the edit war. Might it have been better to effect this pause at a point when this disputed addition was not included, pending a consensus on whether it merits inclusion? --Rrburke 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Concensus would solve the issue through discussion at the talk page. If there would be no discussion w/in 48 hours i'll unprotect it. -- Szvest 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®[reply]

Mozzarella

Just leave the user alone. As long as its vandalizing its own talk page it isn't vandalizing Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Refugee

Thanks for your kind words. I'd love to help. I've also sent you an e-mail outlining my ideas about who might be useful in solving the issues, and mentioned a couple of other names I think you should consider. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian music

Please explain on the article's talk page why you added the Expert tag. What are you looking for? Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:159.105.80.92

From what I can tell he is a disruptive Holocaust denier. Any warning will do; you could point him to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and suggest he needs to start following them, as his Talk: page use is disruptive, and Wikipedia is not a debating board. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Arar

Please see my comments. Thank you.

Ernst Zundel - Talk

Sorry for that; it was an unintended revert. I must have missed the overwrite warning. 159 is a great tool, as he has so much nonsense and is so easy to refute. I'll read the using talk pages link -- I do try not to keep trolls going, but 159 is more a hit and run poster then a true troll. Cantankrus 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue revert to Jaca

Hi, I just made a quick edit to Jaca and got a message saying that it had been reverted (apparently by STBot using VP). I believe this edit should not have been reverted, and am therefore contacting you. :-) The edit was legit, and there was no need to revert it. I re-reverted, and things are apparently okay now. Have a good one. -- 201.50.246.69 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult Wikipedia:Disambiguation on proper procedure for resolving ambiguity. --Rrburke 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Repeated Reverts/Threats to Block for Content Dispute

Since you do not want me communicating on your user page, please respond on mine or on the Fraulein discussion page. I apologize if I offended you, but I am not going to allow you to accuse me of vandalism because of a content dispute.

Re: declining to block 24.34.222.139

Hello there. I considered that, although she had indeed blanked user and user talk pages several times, justifying that as an accident, the fact that she had stopped blanking pages by the time she got the final warning, and that she started discussing in talk pages instead of editing by the time I checked (the edits to Fräulein were already done), it was better to leave unblocked to continue with the ongoing discussion, as it is quite possible that, with a 3 hours block, she would come back editing the articles after the block was lifted. Feel free to relist the report for another admin to review, I won't be offended. Blocks are preventive, not punitive, and since she was discussing and not disrupting, blocking for something she had already done is not just in my point of view. As I had said, though, feel free to relist her if you think she deserves a block. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That information was not in the AIV report. I notice the latest edit in the Talk:Fräulein article is from over a month ago, though. Although it is possible to think her user page blanking as vandalism due a previous content dispute, all I can offer is to ask another admin to review the case, and/or relist her at AIV to see if another admin decides to block her (although it has passed some time by now and it is not likely she will blocked). -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gavin O'Brien

You may want to consider protecting that article against re-creation: the one you deleted was attempt number 3. --Rrburke(talk) 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned. The next recreation should result in a block IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch and glue

You tagged this article as unreferenced back in November, and I subsequently added some reference links, including the one fact you questioned, and removed a statement I can't verify. You can see the differences here. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if there's anything else you feel needs a reference? scot 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name

Middle name is not necessary in the case of Saul D. Betesh. Please stop adding it in, it is getting a bit annoying to read it. David Betesh

How dare you accuse me of sock-puppeting! I would never do such a thing. I always make my changes under this name. How do you know other people aren't doing it on my behalf. Don't ever accuse me again of sockpuppeting.David Betesh

....So you are saying that the IP address, Special:Contributions/216.46.79.2 is like what, an imaginary friend ? They have identical taste in articles in that case. This is truly a fantastic coincidence. Ttiotsw 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both Rrburke and Ttiotsw. I will vow to stop messing with the emanuel jacques page if you can take me off both of your talk pages. As you can see by my work, I am a serious editor, just a bit paranoid about having a killers name show up whenever people are inquiring about me. Please take this into consideration and delete my name, references and comments off these talk pages.David Betesh

"Fact" tags

Hi, it's best not to "subst" these tags, or most cleanup tags. See WP:SUBST for more details. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 19:34 25 February 2007 (GMT).

Articles for deletion/Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

Hi Rrburke: You nominated Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism.) However, it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [6]). Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 12:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

Unfortunately, unless a source can be found to confirm it, we have to leave it removed, since it concerns the biography of a living person. I'll see if I can find any sourcing for the claim. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and no trouble with the vandalism bit, I've had a few vandal reverts cross over like that too. Sometimes, seems the server doesn't correctly flag an edit conflict. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Saegal

Here is the source for Seagal's work as a sheriff [7] Bencey 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katz

I have a slightly different read of WP:VANDALISM. It clearly says "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. " clearly, there is no consensus for removing the Katz quote, and this says, removing parts of a page w/o consensus is vandalism. Additionaly, as you note "good-faith removals of disputed material are never considered vandalism" - but when an editor lies about the reason for removal (e.g.: falsely alleging the material is self published) , and does so repeatedly, even after being shown that it is a false claim, I don't think we can pretend good faith exits. I also believ you are misreading or misconstruing WP:ATT with regards to the equivalnce between inclusion and exclusion. All it says in this regard is that all material must be attributable - i.e, if an unsourced claim is made, it can be removed unless a source is provided. Nowhere does it say that if editors disagree about the reliability of a source that it stays out. And that is for a reason - if that were the case, all contentious material would be deleted from WP, as those who find it objectioanble would simply disagree with the source's worthiness. Isarig 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised several issues, and I'll try to address them, though I believe future discussion on this topic belongs on the article's Talk page.
  • Was it vandalism? You implicitly concede that it is possible that in the particular instance I was responding to, the reason was frivolous (a claim that it was self-published, when it is clearly not). I do not want to belabor this point - I think a warning was in order, the editor stopped using that false claim after I warned him and I did not report him, so I think my action was appropriate and achieved its goal, so there' no point in wikilawyering over this.
  • Are inclusions are exclusions equal? As I wrote there is good reason why WP:ATT only requires attribution, but does not say what you claim it does. If we were to accept your reading of it, no disputed content would ever remain on WP, because all the editors who object to it would have to do is refuse to accept the legitimacy of any source. of course, material that is not sourced to a WP:RS can always be removed, but at that point, exclusion and inclusion rest on the same footing - there must be consensus for either one, and there is no particular onus on the inclusionist to prove the reliability to the exclusionists content - it is just a content dispute at that point.
  • The meat of the matter is does Ktaz's book meet the criteria set forth in WP:ATT for a reliable source. First I must say that I find your claim that no attempt had been made to establish Katz's reliability to be completely incorrect. In fact, you have participated in discussions on the Talk that have done this, and the arguments brought forth include his being published by a mainstream press, his status as a historian (something which at least one of the editors who objects to the quote seems to accept). You may not have been swayed by these arguments, but let' snot pretend they were not made. The objection you raised on my talk page have been dealt with on the Talk page, but I'll repeat the answers: far from being obsolete, the editor who originally inserted the quote has shown you that a 1990 edition of the book repeats the same claims. No one can seriously claim that a 1990 book is 'out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher." Raising this objection now, after this has been pointed out to you is borderline frivolous in itself. The other objection is that it is a 'questionable source". The examples WP:ATT list as questionable are "websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy." - books published by mainstream presses are notably absent from the list. If we were to rely only on academic presses, I hazard a guess that less than 5% of WP content would remain. Just look at the very article in dispute- which sources claims to sources such as the "democractnow.org" website, to frontpage magazine, and to "standforjsutice" - surely if the issue was reliable sources, there are more obvious cases to start with. Isarig 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Correcting a spelling error?

Re:

Changed sexualy to sexually.

07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

www.death[-]camps.org

FYI: I just had an anon, 71.243.84.163, edit my Talk page history to change death-camps.org to deathcamps.org deathcamps.org. I guess the "ethnic cleansing" is still ongoing. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[8] I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are particularly helpful. Regarding the Amir ones, the fact that they're both in Hebrew makes them not very useful on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toaff

Not only that, but Toaff has apparently rescinded his claims. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he's just "re-editing", whatever that means. Regardless, the work is currently withdrawn, which make any claims based on it highly dubious. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling AfD nominations

I was hoping there might be an easier way to do it! I was going to submit a bunch more for AfD, but I didn't want to repeat the same process over and over. Thank you! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good advice. But in this case, it's all early 1900s hockey players, and the articles were virtually all created by the same editor. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rrburke. As you are already on the userlist for VandalProof 1.3, there is no need to readd yourself.

Simply download VandalProof from http://amidaniel.com and login using your current account. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've updated your entry on our userlist, so try again. If it still won't let you in, ensure you have cleared your cache etc. on Internet Explorer and so on. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please report this at our bug tracker. Thanks. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

I just waited. It took a few minutes, but, when I tried again, it worked. Wait 5 minutes? - hmwithtalk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it worked for hmwith is because I corrected their entry on our userlist. Unfortunately, you are currently correctly listed on the list so there's not much I can do. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your VandalProof working yet? (out of curiosity) - hmwithtalk 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about User:Wassermann

Hi Rrburke: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User name in file name

(You wrote): Hi, DES. Thanks for your input. If you wanted to email me, I could reply with a few links you could have a look at so you could judge for yourself whether the particulars in this case are consistent with the relevant policies. --Rrburke(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly i'm not really interseted in any such links unless you are askling for my help as an admin in dealign with the matter. Mon concern in our exchange was with teh general principle, not the specific instance. And I almost always prefer to discuss wikipedia matters on-wiki, not by email. DES (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(You wrote) Hi, again. I made this suggestion merely because you had written, "Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken." And yes, I was asking for your help as an admin, but also for your advice as a more experienced user. This is also why I suggested email: I was trying to be circumspect and not have an allegation of improper behaviour appear together with the editor's username on any Wikipedia page until a more experienced user had judged whether the behaviour actually was improper. I wasn't trying to do an end-run around Wikipedia; I was just trying to avoid making an inaccurate accusation. It's the same reason I didn't name the editor in any of my posts to the thread. --Rrburke(talk) 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong in writing, on wiki, something like: "Editor X made edits Y and Z (diffs) and I think that they might be improper under policy Q, but I'm not sure. Would more experienced editors look into the situation. I think these edits might be improper for Reasons R, S, and T. Off wiki links L, M, and N are relevant." Stuff like this (and stuff far less polite than this) is posted all the time at WP:AN/I, and WP:AN and WP:AN/3 and other such places. As Long as you are politely pointing out a possible problem, not raucously accusing another editor of vandalism or other nasty acts, doing this public is IMO a far better course than doing it privately. Some would suggest first raising the matter directly with the other editor, on his or her individual talk page, politely pointing out why you think there might be a problem. That couldn't hurt, but might not help. If you care to post details to my talk page, I will gladly look into the matter. If the off-wiki links can be found by a google search, feel free to post only links to the on-wiki pages where the problem is or was, although diffs of particular edits would help. DES (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenberg

That whole list is dubious; many of the people on it are there erroneously. I don't actually know anything about Rosenberg. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note :) — Demong talk 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing![reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dog Gone / All You Can't Eat

You had me worried there for a second! Ayudante 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rage

I was actually going to put a AfD tag on the page, but you beat me to it. Technically the author DID remove a Prod, so the next step is an AfD, but yeah it needs to be speedied. Wildthing61476 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks!

PS: You may have "mark all edits as minor" turned on in your preferences. PRODding an article is never minor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Userbox Contest

Prod doesn't apply to this -- it is in WP space. Probably WP:MFD is the place DGG 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Even if it was moved there, MFD might now be the way to get rid of it, rather than move it back, usually quick and easy.DGG 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

emerging nanotech

Clearly we don't agree, & that's why we have AfD. Spam is for articles that can not be improved. NN is for articles that look unsourceable, with speedy for that only if its incontestible. I think that not only can it be improved, but that it is now improved enough, & that refs can & will be found. You don't, and we clearly differ about where to draw the line for this sort of article, & I see nothing wrong about that. I regret that you didn't think its better enough, so its perfectly reasonable that you'll send it to AfD and we can see what others think. and so we can discuss it there. If the rest agree with you, it will get deleted. It's not personal either way. When people continue to disagree, an open discussion is better than private arguement.

I'm not trying to keep everything. I removed 2 speedy tags today, sending the other one to PROD; While doing that, I deleted 20 or so articles from CSD. I probably agree with 90% of what you tag.
I'm going to make a point to !vote delete for that low-grade joke you found, tho I sometimes ignore MfD. Since WP space isn't a priority, there's undoubtedly lots of junk there. DGG 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just put in 6 refs, and a few of their publications. Wouldn't have done it if you hadn't replied, and so I thank you--the threat of deletion frequently does get articles improved. (smile)DGG 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replied on my page to maintain continuity. DGG 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wintour

we seem to be getting in each others way, so Im going to bed. There are real GS hits in a very respectable range;it is probably worth bring up at Deletion Review,so I userified it in my user space to work on getting the citations. DGG 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC) This one was my fault, for I had carelessly started work on it before I looked at the edit history--but this is the hardest type to judge: a really messed up article filled with classroom idiocy, but about a potentially good person; there's another trap that I have not yet fallen into--deleting an article as empty when someone maliciously blanked it. DGG 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) You've never done it that I know of, but I almost have.DGG 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not do what you claim I had done

I did not remove any prod or other from any article I created. Someone else must have done that. Please do not be so quick to accuse. Anyway, check R. S. Wenocur on Google Scholar; Wenocur's work has helped me considerably in my own consulting, and works with many prominent people. I had planned to work on the article, just as other did for Alice Isen, who happens to be Wenocur's first cousin and confidante. Alfred Legrand 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guard Rails (band) page

Greendayrocker82You sent me a message saying I should review the self promotion page for posting about the band guard rails. I am not in this band however. I was trying to post this topic about a band that I have witnessed doing charitable events in the area, so I do not really understand how this is self-promoting.

Kennedy

I'm going to try the WSJ and see; our link to DowJones (Factica) isn't working well > Will give results or lack of them on the AfD page. I'm not going to worry about them too much. 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:U and User:Atlpimpin770

Thanks for your message. Actually, I pay pretty close attention to current slang and usage, and believe me, "pimpin'" has little or anything to do with pimping, that is, acting as a pimp or procurer for a sex worker, any more than "Author _____ is on tour, flogging his new book" has anything to do with administering a beating as punishment or as a BDSM practice. Really. As one of the entries in Urban Dictionary notes, "Rather than having references to an actual pimp, it's used to describe something that's cool, in style, or amazes the speaker so much they can't think of anything else to say." [9] (While Urban Dictionary is not exactly a reliable source for articles, it's a pretty good yardstick for current slang usage. And yes, some entries there do make reference to its meaning in sex work.) Also, for reference, note the additional entries:

  1. pimpin chicken
  2. pimpin city
  3. Pimpin fo shimpin
  4. Pimpin hoes
  5. pimpin in da suburbs
  6. pimpin in the woods
  7. pimpin it good
  8. Pimpin Jesus
  9. pimpin out
  10. Pimpin Pen
  11. pimpin pens
  12. pimpin shnits
  13. Pimpin Simpson
  14. pimpin suit
  15. pimpin sweet
  16. pimpin the nation
  17. pimpin the world
  18. pimpin'
  19. Pimpin' ain't easy
  20. pimpin' fresh

That said, I'm perfectly willing to defer to anyone who is actually offended, or has reason to believe that it is meant in the sense of a pimp or procurer. --MCB 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to revert

You reverted an edit on my userpage but you didn't have to. It's a section I have where people can put vandalism if they want. Thanks for your consideration, though. JetLover 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mojothemofo

I may follow your advice and ask for comment on this. I think the rules are silly, to be honest. I see user names with poop get blocked, by mofo is okay? And remember, Everyone Poops.—Gaff ταλκ 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the report to the top. Hopefully that was correct. I did notice on the instructions they suggest talking to the user before posting the report. There is a template to do this. I didn't know it until after I posted the report. —Gaff ταλκ 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spouse"

The current item in the infobox is obviously heterosexist and US-centric. People who wish to diminish the value and legitimacy of LGBT relationships, or promote a DOMA-type definition of "marriage" in general, will make the argument we saw on the Reilly talk page. I would propose a second line be added right under "spouse =" that says something general enough to cover all serious committed relationships. Reilly and Hughes were together for 27 years. Some heterosexual couples are together for long periods without marrying. Perhaps "companion =" or "life partner =" or "partner ="? I'd prefer something like that over a more sexualized term like "lover =" or something less serious like "boyfriend =" etc. Perhaps once we think on this a bit, we can raise the issue on the template talk page and get the LGBT editor project to help? Jokestress 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

Incidentally, I also used that particular vandal to test my newly acquired "block user" button. Seems to be working! Pascal.Tesson 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DLT

DAVE LEE TRAVIS - Wikipedia says people opinions should be respected. It is the opinion of many that DLT was arogant to resign on air and that his show was outdated for the era. I have re entered this opinion, I have not called DLT arogant and respected that the last comments may have appeared so. I am stating a fact about his resignation which I think adds to the article. Who are you to assume his actions that day were correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 05:54, 30 May 2007

DLT

Yes that arogant comment is fair enough BUT surely part of the history of Dave Lee Travis is the fact he resigned on air because he knew he was to be fired! He admits this himself. Including a piece on his resignation and failing to mention this is NOT completing the story. You may as well delete everything to do with is on air rant if you are not going to allow it to be reported correctly. Matthew Bannister was going to sack him so he got in first. This is FACT, so why not let it be included. I have worked in the industry for years and probably know more about Radio one from 1988 - 1996 than you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2007

Bob Mills

My comments about Bob Mills writing the drama Bob Martin were fact and wrongly removed by you (why are you following me around?). I have re added them with a link to the IMDB as a source.

I may have "messed about" at first but I have lots of knowledge of both TV and radio, having been in the industry and am keen to share it here, and I do apologise for messing about at the start, but ive worked with DLT, i know what hes like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowweb (talk • contribs) 08:09, 31 May 2007

Fair enough

Although IMDB clearly shows the work Bob Mills has done, I will also not publish by first hand knowledge here, although may I ask why cites from peoples autobiographies are used here as fact. The Ed Stewart page contained a flasehood that he had to "go along" with Jim Moir's story. This was the opinion of Mr Stewart in his book and not a fact Wowweb 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies

Hello

Thank you for clearing that up for me regarding autobiography quotes and opinions! Wowweb 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thoroughly disgusted

How dare you insult my intelligence by reprimanding me over issues that I am an expert on! I am in fact, a resident of Langford and have been my whole life. I am well versed in all aspects of Langford as well as general redneck culture. I have spent all 7 years of my life studying the natural habitat and cultural interactions between the Langfordicus Aferensis species.

In the future, please do not censor my updates, as I wish to merely enlighten the Wikipedia community with my scientifically proven discoveries.

Sincerely,

Ryan ALdred

why did you remove my add ons to nkec?

nkec

why did you remove my add ons to nkec?

Confunsed?

Hi, I'm confused, how did I vandalize? I just put my comments down like everyone else! --GoGoPedia 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Well spotted. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

When we block someone for improper conduct, we block the person, not one handle or one IP address. Therefore, any attempt by the blocked person to evade his block by connecting under a different name or IP address results in the block being reset, and depending on other related behavior may get the block extended. In this particular case, as I noted in his AN/I report, he refused to acknowledge or recognize his unacceptable behavior, which led me to believe he will resume that conduct as soon as or shortly after he is unblocked, as he did previously. Therefore I extended his block indefinitely pending clarification. See the AN/I report for further details. Thanks, Crum375 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The more I think of it, the more I think the way it is now is the best. Wait until some others look at it and see what they think. But, the Top 7 as voted by Canadians is just a top 7, the CBC never once said that it is also a seven wonders list and we should avoid calling it that. -- Scorpion0422 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV Request

Thank you for making a report about Randomperson2121 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. No vandalism by User:Randomperson2121 after final warning -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have been blocked. Hopefully, you didn't wait for me to respond and added an entry to WP:AIV. It was late and I needed some sleep. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 13:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pucci Dellanno

Hi there, thanks, I am working on this - and thanks for the category tips.

I am working on the sources right now, please give me a little time to work it out.

  • I have put a lot of supporting links in the talk page - and I also have put some sources on the main page. hope this is better.


Hi there,

I have put in a lot more references - this is hard work, I never realised. I am not connected with Pucci Dellanno personally or on a business basis, to be honest I am a fan and I have done a lot of beavering about finding information because Take Me Away is one of my favourite tunes of all times and I know a lot more people than just me feel the same (see here from last month! http://remixmag.com/contest/detroit-contest-051007)

Thanks for your help by the way.

Thom.

Cronulla Riots

you sent me an message about the comment posted below:

"its OK to state that Middle Easterns were bashed but not white Australians??? AGENDA?? R U MIDDLE EASTERN?"

can you please explain where that comment is "hostile and uncivil"...

the article at present in the introduction states that Middle Easterns were "bashed" but when i attempted to balance the introduction and wrote that Australians were also "bashed" it was reverted - a clear antogonistic revert which unbalances the article...

therefore, as the revert unbalances the article, a rational and resonable conclusiuon is that there is an "agenda" being palyed out - how is that "hostile and uncivil"?

also, i have no non-neutral sentiments toward Middle Eastern people - therefore, i asked if the revert editor was Middle Eastern as that may be the source of the agenda - if you think asking someone if they are Middle Eastern is "hostile and uncivil" then you are racist because clearly you see being Middle Eastern as a negative and insluting thing, otherweise you wouldnt interpret it as "hostile and uncivil" - therefore you are racist...

I think using the term abo was out of line and I should not be using that term as I have a step brother who happens to be half aborigini half Maltese, have a look at my user page thats him in the photo, but I don't think there is anything wrong about mentioning certain breading habits. The people who I was refering to would agree and side with me concerning what I wrote, so they wouldn't be offended, but it may offend Australians knowing that this may happen one day. --HumphryTheFunLovingFellowIsHereTodayRightNow 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wound Care Center at Nyack Hospital

Hi,

I just noticed that the original author of Wound Care Center at Nyack Hospital had removed the maintenance tags from the article, including the COI tag you placed on it. I added the tags again. --B. Wolterding 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UFA

For the usernames that reflect company names, you may want to use {{UsernameConcern}} first. --wL<speak·check> 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I usually block usernames on the sight of either edits that promote their site or create an alternate username that is similar to their blocked one. I feel it's kinda biting them if I block them before they do anything. --wL<speak·check> 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usernames that match web addresses or company names are clear violations of policy.Rlevse 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category vandal

I share your thoughts. See there are dozens and hundreds of categories that should be used with extreme caution, but they never are. People are too quick to slap some sort of category, not because it's really relevant, but merely because it already exists. So any atheist category will have dozens of people that don't belong there. This category should have only those who are known for being atheists. So be my guest (or in other words, be bold) to tighten them up. But I would also support WP:CFD (just doubt it would get deleted). Renata 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a late reply. Running into ten different directions at the same time. Your suggestion sounds very reasonable (in fact, that's how it was supposed to work in the first place) and have fun categorising :) Renata 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

Sorry what did I remove? It said add this text to start deletion process, so I added that link, why is it me that is being accused of malicious edits when it is clearly Tripman. Please could you look into this for me and understand what I am saying. Thank You. DávidSch 15:18, 23 August 2007 (CET)

Please could you also check his talk page, where I just received a direct personal threat from him in Hungarian, which surely is against all Wiki rules. DávidSch 15:23, 23 August 2007 (CET)

Please can you tell me how I can contact an a Wiki administrator? DávidSch 15:43, 23 August 2007 (CET)

CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS ENTRY "Aborigines where hunted and shot as a means of removing them from their land, especially in Tasmania". So how is it that this reference is continually removed. Who can I contact about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien2010 (talk • contribs) 23:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Valium was the only way to deal with that discussion. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a moment of insanity. JayHenry 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo aquitania now PROD'ed

Hi, the DB-BIO tag was removed by the creator. I PRODDED it in hopes that the creator can come up with verifiability on the Cherry Life Savor claim. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Thornlea Secondary School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thornlea Secondary School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornlea Secondary School. Thank you. GreenJoe 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry... I guess I got the tone of that all wrong. --Rrburke(talk) 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. This is a sensitive issue--some things come across as code words for other things. To me being a Jew is different than Judaism. I'm Jewish as an ethnicity, and I practice Judaism as a religion. And yes, there are Atheist Jews IMHO. I think the deletion is a bit silly, and discussions of ethnicity vs. religion is a bit scary to me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your friendly admonishment

I am well aware of those guidelines, and I assumed that those notes would be read by interested parties such as yourself (just as I've read your exchange on this issue with Renata). In fact, I made a point of not posting notes to editors I'm already aquainted with to some degree, who I might have reason to expect would support my arguments. With one very obvious -- and not improper -- exception for the creator of the category, my notes were completely neutral, including the notice of the CFD that I posted for all of the readers of the talk page for Atheist Jew. I have no way of anticipating what anybody who read my notes might have to say on the subject (with the probable noted exception). It is not only legitimate, but desirable, for people who have already seriously engaged with the specific subject to participate in the CFD discussion. Hopefully, they will contribute new insights. Cgingold 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. If you took note of how those two editors came down in the CFD -- they split, one for & one against -- it's apparent that your fears were based on an unfounded assumption. And I'm not at all surprised at that outcome. As for your exchange of notes with Renata -- I didn't mean to suggest that there was anything wrong with it, sorry if it came off sounding like that.
And on a personal note -- it's really unfortunate that CFD is rooted in and structured around an adversarial process. With categories like this that are inherently fraught with strong feelings all around, it would be much better, IMO, to raise these kinds of concerns in a non-adversarial discussion. The option of proposing deletion would still be available when needed, of course. But I think it would help to be able to discuss things in a less rancorous, and more collegial atmosphere, whenever possible.
By the way, did you realize that you deleted my first reply when you added your reply to my talk page? I'm assuming it was unintentional (and I've already restored it). Cgingold 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


JayPaul S. Ahluwalia

Just to be clear, you added a speedy deletion template with the spam rationale. I added one with the a7 rationale. I think both rationales are valid, and it's my understanding that listing both in the article would be appropriate in that case. Do you understand things differently? I just wanted to check because I noticed you removed the spam template after I added the a7 template. Erechtheus 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. That makes sense. I tend to be a bit overaggressive with the use of the spam rationale. This probably isn't an instance of spam. Happy editing. Erechtheus 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When leaving me suggestions or comments on my page, can you please be a bit more specific rather than just leaving a general "please be careful to do such and such" style message. If you are concerned with any of my specific edits, please address those, but don't leave a general message that doesn't really mean anything. I don't need to be notified of WP policies "in general". Thanks. –SESmith 08:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. You DON'T need to quote policy on my talk page at me. That comes off as arrogant, pompous and overbearing. If you'd like to discuss a particular article, then simply bring up the article and your specific concern phrased in your own words. You don't need to include ad nauseum quotes from WP policy to my talk page, and I am just as likely to ignore them as anything else when you try to interact with others as if you or they are a machine.
As for the specific examples you brought up, I was merely adding a Latter Day Saint nationality category to the articles to accompany a Latter Day Saint category that already existed there (e.g., Latter Day Saint sports figures, in the case of Roy Halladay). I included no Latter Day Saint nationality cats on any articles that didn't already include one that identified them of that religious affiliation. Whether the original Latter Day Saint category was placed correctly or incorrectly was not my concern at the time, as I was involved in a batch update involving hundreds of articles. Your quibble—if it is worth the time of worrying about at all—should be raised with whomever assigned the original Latter Day Saint categories you have problems with, not with me. I was just doing what I was doing to hundreds of articles as if I were a machine—not unlike your approach to other WP users, in fact. –SESmith 10:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig

I dunno, I just kept the earlier, wikified version. NawlinWiki 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint at AN/I

Hi, Rrburke. You've not gotten a lot of positive response to your complaint about User:Sesmith at WP:AN/I so far. Maybe it would be a good idea to wait until SESmith reappears and then approach him about the dispute to see if his position has changed at all during his break. It may be that he regrets his incivility, or that he is more willing to be persuaded of your position, or perhaps he'll still have the same reaction as before. But I think he's normally a good, constructive editor, and is willing to admit his faults, so you might consider backing off a bit and trying once more for mutual understanding when he comes back. It doesn't seem quite fair to keep pushing for admin action against him while he's unable to offer his own perspective. If he were simply refusing to take part in the discussion, that would be one thing, but if the message on his user page is to be taken at face value, it's just as likely that he'd respond if he could, and the lack of such an opportunity should not be to his disadvantage. What do you say—can you let it drop until he comes back, and then take it up in as friendly and good-faith-assuming manner as possible? I imagine you'd want to be treated the same way if you were the subject of an AN/I complaint during a time you had to be away, and maybe that approach would help take a lot of the heat out of the conflict. alanyst /talk/ 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying so quickly. You said, "I didn't detect any willingness to compromise or acknowledgement of having done anything wrong on his part -- quite the contrary -- so perhaps this is the only way to get his attention." I didn't see that sort of willingness on his part either—but neither did I see much willingness during that conflict on your part to compromise or acknowledge any fault in your approach. He might be as frustrated with you as you are with him, and maybe in his frustration he stepped over the bounds of civility as "the only way to get [your] attention". This is not to justify what he did, but to persuade you that you could cut him a little slack and maybe he'd actually cut you some in return. You say, "I fully expect that absent some kind of censure he'll just carry right on," but that seems overly pessimistic given that he has expressed a desire to be less hot-headed, and has had an opportunity to take a break and reset his perspective. You feel wounded from his attacks and want him censured for that, but if you shrug it off this time and give him another chance maybe things will work out better this time. If they don't, you're that much more justified in asking for sanctions.
I'm not sure why I'm devoting this much to the "defense" of an editor I don't really know, but I guess I find it regrettable when good editors end up in conflict with each other because they didn't go the extra mile in trying to understand each other. I'm a regular ol' busybody, ain't I? :) alanyst /talk/ 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, I agree with your description of the conflict; the basis for comparison I had in mind was a mutual unwillingness, as I read it, to try to understand where the other was coming from. He didn't try to understand why you felt the policy had to be enforced the way you wanted it to be, and you didn't try to understand why he didn't like what you were trying to do (or, perhaps, the way you were trying to do it). Maybe both of you assumed what the other's reasons or mindset were, without bothering to ask? Neither of you sought common points of agreement and then tried to work out how to find a solution that both could be comfortable with; you both just insisted you were right and the other was wrong. That's where I guess I see the similarity in the behavior, and the breakdown in the interaction. Anyhow, I appreciate your tolerance of my long-windedness. (And I would be remiss in failing to point out that I am not a paragon of Good Wikipedia Interaction myself; don't mean to be implying anything of the sort.) Cheers, alanyst /talk/ 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine McCann

The problem is anyone can say anthing they like. Until it is confirmed by official sources it remains speculation. The consensus is that the Police, the McCanns themselves, the McCann's lawyer and the McCann's spokeswoman can be considered official.

The object is not to cover news as it breaks. The object is to compile the facts of the case as they are known at the time. Speculation, and worse, lobbying by friends and family or anyone else is not factual and has no place in an encyclopedia.

Think about what you wrote: "This is not speculation, it's a newspaper report quoting a source closely-connected to the case, who presumably got her information from the principals." What place does presumption have in an encyclopedia? And what place does lobbying on behalf of indivduals have. Let's stick to facts please.

As far as "Moreover, your reversion renders the section unintelligible..." argue that in the talk page. I certainly understand what is being alleged from the quote by McGuinness. The additional speculation by the aunt is not needed, assuming it is even correct. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if a newspaper reports speculation, it remains just that, speculation. An encyclopedia is about fact, not speculation. The Aunt can tell a newspaper anything she likes to try to paint her neices in a better light. Again, that is lobbying and spin, not fact. Where is your proof that what is reported in the newspaper is true?
I am not trying to "police" the article. I am trying to remind you that you need to respect the consensus that has built up on the talk page. If you wish to contribute to the discussion on this, please do so on the article's talk page, not mine. That is where consensus develops on how the article should be edited. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* That's entirely untrue: people cannot "say anything they like": they can only include material attributable to a reliable, verifiable, published source.  You appear confused about the threshold for inclusion: it's "verifiability, not truth."
I am not confused at all. What I meant was that anyone can say anything they like to a newspaper. What is verifiable is that the Aunt said this to the newspaper. The paper can report it as opinion or speculation, which is what it is. It does not make what the Aunt is saying verifiable in and of itself. The only people who can truly say what the police are thinking are the police themselves. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot easier if we confned this to the article's talk page. See my response there. I won't respond here again. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is swearing illigle

No problem, and I see the article has gone to its rightful reward, in any case, just a little sooner! I suppose it all comes down to the question of what is a blatant hoax. With the politicians we have these days, anything seems possible sometimes! --Slp1 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrburke/Archive_1&oldid=1138990435"