User talk:Tvoz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

May - December 2007ish archive 2

Lost season finale

I just have to say this. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Back to editing now. Tvoz |talk 03:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In a good or bad way? I saw it as well. I usually read spoilers from a site that reveals a little, not a lot, and last week they unfortunately ran some spoilers that gave the entire season finale away... I would have liked it a lot better if it had a surprise factor for me.--Gloriamarie 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Songs with Names AFD

Yeah, usually I am a bit of a deletionist when it comes to every Joe Six-pack who wants to have a Wikipedia article, but for things like that, it seems clear that it has a purpose... and I find it very interesting.---Gloriamarie 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

24

Hi. Yes, I am working on it, but I plan not to add everything in the season in the season overview since I just review 24 (Season 5) and the season overview there is short and not everything is there, take a look. Feel free to comment. One more thing, don't put too much details since the section is getting too long. Chris 22:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

KS Shootings Question

Hey Tvoz, just a small question - if you don't want to answer this, I'll understand. Do you have some sort of personal connection to the KS shootings? Related to one of the shooting victims maybe? Just curious because of your zeal with the article in talk. Again, if you don't care to answer that one, no big deal. Thanks. 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox137 (talk • contribs)

No - I think I already have told you this, but I don't mind saying it again: the personal connection I have to Kent State is that I was a 19 year old college student in NY on May 4, 1970, peacefully, and loudly, protesting Nixon's expansion of the war into Cambodia on my college campus, and when I heard the news later that day I knew - like all students protesting that day around the country - that it could have been me. Or any of my friends. In some sense it was us. Can you understand that? I don't know if you have yet grasped the horror of that day, Equinox - you give lip service to it, but then you spend all of your energy defending the guardsmen and trying to find actions of the students that would somehow justify this use of force and its horrific results. Four young people were killed and nine wounded that day by American soldiers, on an American college campus - not in an act of self defense. The students weren't armed. Some weren't even protesting. You can say over and over that you think the protests weren't legal - except that in the United States people have a Constitutional right to assemble and therefore to protest, which is a higher authority than some college president or even a Governor (who in fact did not declare martial law). You can tell me that you think the Guardsmen felt threatened, but they were the ones with the bullets and clearly they knew that. You can tell me that these things happen, but they never did before, and they never should. Their parents sent them off to college - do you understand they were just kids going to college, not agent provocateurs, not terrorists, not violent radicals - as you well know, one was ROTC - and they had a right to believe that they would be safe on their campus, and not attacked by our own soldiers. It was a horrific day, Equinox, and those of us who lived through it will never forget it. I feel an obligation to Jeff, Sandy, Allison, and Bill - and to my own children - and yours - to make sure that people know what happened that day, and to do whatever I can to prevent it from happening again. To tell the story -fairly, but thoroughly. I didn't have to have a personal connection to them - I am them. Tvoz |talk 05:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Equinox137 05:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of journalists by employer

The problem with categorizing journalists by their employer is that many of them work for many different networks, so they are not really defined as working with one specific network (although people like Dan Rather are exceptions). Moreover, the categorization scheme leads to category clutter problems. Discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion already reached this conclusion regarding categories such as Category:CBS personalities, Category:NBC personalities, etc.; see, for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3#TV personalities. If used to list journalists by employer, these categories could potentially be nominated for deletion, which is what happened with some sports broadcast categories. It would be best just to use the categories to list articles about the shows themselves instead of the people. Dr. Submillimeter 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

I rated that page bias because with the anti-Bush/cheney thing, you can't tell if what people put is true, or bias. Let me know what you think!

Politics rule 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your work on the article that I began, Astronaut Hall of Fame or U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame, whatever the name. Is there a definite wording say, on the Hall of Fame's charter documents or the like?Feddhicks 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. I thought the fish guy was gone but I see he has returned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

how?

How do you chop off large sections without offending the one's who wrote it? For example, see Ron Paul's 2nd GOP debate. Why don't we just put page after page of transcript and also list what he had for breakfast and lunch that day, too?Pipermantolisopa 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA review

> what did you think?
Reasonable comments. I don't especially care whether the HRC article makes GA or not, but I'm willing to help fix some of the issues identified. Wasted Time R 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ok

ok, fine about Edwards. You took out the part about him being the first. He was! By several months. But it's not too serious if he doesn't get credit for that in the article.Pipermantolisopa 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. You kept the part that he was first. You just took out the part that nobody else except Obama released a plan.Pipermantolisopa 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you object, but more good news organizations is better. CNN article doesn't say Edwards is stupid or killed someone. If it were FOX News , then I would see the objection. Let's keep it.Pipermantolisopa 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, give me a minute and the talk page will have a good explanation.Pipermantolisopa 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a good explanation. You are edit warring, and POV pushing, and not discussing changes that objections are being raised about. Tvoz |talk 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is only testing the water. Ron Paul has more problems than just a reference or two.Pipermantolisopa 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul. Stop this now. Tvoz |talk 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's this about knowing my style? I am not a Ron Paul campaign worker!Pipermantolisopa 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dereks1x

Tvoz, I'm sorry that I didn't respond to the message that you left on my talk page the other day ([1]) about possible Dereks1x socks. If it hasn't already been handled, probably the best thing to do is inform Jersyko, or start a new Checkuser request; but if you think I can help, feel free to post on my talk page or email me. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess that was kind of clueless of me. Anyway, if I can assist let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

no fight intended

I don't want to get into a fight with you because we share similar philosophies. However, rather than edit war, I have submitted a third opinion about the use of the reference in the Edwards article. The disagreement is not about wording, only the reference.Pipermantolisopa 00:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The 3rd request got blanked out by Jerseyko. Jerseyko thought the wording of the mediation request wasn't good so I changed it and put back on the tag on your talk page so that you can see the revised wording.Pipermantolisopa 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Bama the Irishman

It's being brought up again. Italiavivi 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your email

Tvoz, I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner. I got your email and I agree that your concerns are valid, but I haven't had time to investigate fully. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do anything until Monday or so. Sorry about the delay. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Statement

I found the statement on Youtube here. I'm just not sure which citation a political debate would fit. Hope that's what you were looking for. Hewinsj 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles with Names Deletion Debate

I'm glad to see it was kept! You had a great argument.--Gloriamarie 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edwards. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

vandalism

hello I was hoping you could help me resently there was been a lot of homophobic langauge been used on the michael jackson article. "Jimmy 3280" changed king of pop to king of homosexuals in the main article. I wrote to him in his artcle telling him to grow up and he told me "sod off you old fart, Im telling the truth."

User "DaveyJones 1968" is a little more tricky, for the last few days he has contributed to the discussion page in what appeared to be a nuetral manner trying to get the estimated sales figures of jackson made smaller. however over resent hours he has shown his true colours and is infact a closet MJ HATER!!!!!!!! He said the Michael jackson wears make up because he is gay. Not only is it extremely unwise to suggest he is gay on wikipedia (we do not want to be held liable) but it is also sterotypical and homophobic. I was hoping you could speak to these people and possible have them removed if there actions continue.Realist2 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will keep watch on it. unfortunately I am relatively new to wikipedia so consulting administrators is hard to do or understand, discrimination on wikipedia is intolerable and he will upset homosexuals with words like Fagboy being thrown around, I am trying to stay on positive terms with daveyjones but he doesnt seem interested at the moment. please monitor the situation and take action where needed. Comments made on race would be clamped down on so im worried a double standard is growing on wikipedia if this is the case.Realist2 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry. Do you like the edits i am making on Oscar's Orchestra and Marc Forne Molne, Christine118500 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree, but i thought i would create it because it is about a PM of Andorra, and i thought it would be good to have a page on him seeing as he is still alive. do you know of anyone who can help? Christine118500 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

we do have pages on all PMs of Britain thanks. Trust me, I have done a project on them. Christine118500 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, what did I say? I said, there are pages on all PMs. And it's BRITAIN, not England. They are the PMs of B-R-I-T-A-I-N!

Christine118500 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to go, but wil be back on Monday. Christine118500 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Madrassa alert.

I know you do not care for my past edits to Obama's article, but this is just an FYI for your benefit. Italiavivi 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE Steak Dinner

Yes, a steak the size of a toilet seat, Baked Potato the size of a baby's head, enough wine to fill a zip lock gallon bag, and a blue cheese dressed salad to fresh and tart you just want to smack it till it cries. Cuban cigars big enough to cause global warming and smog as thick as Los Angeles.... THIS will be mine the moment I get my dream ticket of CLINTON/OBAMA 2008. So has been spoken; it shall be. AMEN Cr8tiv 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Help desk

hello - I responded to your question there Tvoz |talk 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that page is a great help. •97198 talk 07:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:TM gives an overview of other template pages - very useful. Have fun! Tvoz |talk 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll see what I can find! •97198 talk 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability tags

Please don't remove notability tags unless they are actually met. Episode articles are inherently not encyclopedic, so they need to prove themselves. TTN 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I placed a discussion on the main article, so that should be good enough (unless you would like me to spam the season articles with it). A quick look at the articles shows no real world notability, so they fail it. There isn't much more to it. 7:00AM-8:00AM (24 season 5) is the only decent one, but it is still lacking information that stabilizes an article. TTN 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I said placing messages on season talk pages, not episode articles. Anyways, WP:N and WP:V (and other things like WP:RS) are non-negotiable, and those directly relate to WP:EPISODE and other fiction guidelines. Tagging them is the only way to get them up to standards or redirect them at this point, so I really don't get what you would like me to do. I'm not going to just leave them alone because other have different methods of dealing with them. That how this problem started. I'm fine with respecting people; it's just your view that this somehow is bad, even though it is the best way of getting people's attention.

It's not threatening them or anything. They go up for "review" at that point to gain either a community type consensus if nobody bothered to respond or help people sort them out. It also rules out any "no discussion/no consensus" complaints. TTN 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment--happened to be here for something else--that while the principle of RS is not negotiable, the details most certainly are. The rule about primary sources is policy, not foundational principle, and can be changed by consensus--though I think it should remain as a general rule. The details of what it applies to are also changeable, and can be changed without removing the rule, and I think the application of it here is --well--debatable. DGG 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN arbitration

[2] Angie Y. 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

re: IP block

Heya, thanks for taking interest. A good read on the subject is Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. In a nutshell, we have to be very careful blocking IP addresses because they can be reassigned to other people at any time. Therefore, IP blocks are always shorter than a user block would be. If that were a registered user, I would have indefinitely blocked them long ago. A key phrase in the page I cited is "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". I will keep an eye on this user - in the event that he doesn't get bored and go away in a month, I will consider six months or a year. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs

Some people really hate these lists, regardless of how well they are done, and hate similar lists of other things. I don't, though they are hell to maintain properly. But its an opinion about WP, and there can be two views. I've commented before at the AfD that I think there needs to be a community discussion, rather than going at them one at a time. I'm going to say it again, perhaps you'll want to support it--I do not know how to set one up, though--If you do, be bold. DGG 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator.27s help

Head up... you are the named party. LessHeard vanU 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) ps. You're a bloke!!!

now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy

The matter has now been alluded to here. I will keep an eye on it if there is any response. LessHeard vanU 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD and lists

I've replied on my talk page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and the C Word

My pleasure. You've been a good wikifriend and fellow Bx Sci person. I didn't go further, because (a) I "knew" someone else would pick up the baton in what I called "the relay race", (b) I didn't know exactly what to do, and (c) I was kinda curious how it would play out. Bellagio99 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) BxSc 59 ("you could look it up" - Casey S)

Dear Tvoz

Dear Tvoz,

I'm so sorry that you disagree with my decision of closing that particular debate as Delete. I personally have no particular position in the Deletionism vs Inclusionist debate, and at this particular case, I pondered the arguments expressed in both senses as well as taking into account the number of participants. Not only that, but I also researched a little further and read the discussion that took place at Deletion Review in late May in order to get further perspective and information. You have pointed out that "sure there were other supporters of this list who were unaware that it was again up for deletion, so soon after the last round, who would have weighed in had they known." While this is certainly a possibility, the debate lasted for a week, way longer than the usual 5 days these debates are supposed to remain open; that is, sufficient and ample time for the community to express itself - and in my most humble view, it did: 25 comments with well over 80% of them expressing themselves in one sense is an unequivocal show of consensus. When said comments are also joined with reasonable arguments, as they did in this case (and in my role as closing admin I concluded so), the decision is evident. I might add that I have closed other highly controversial, far more disputed AfDs than this, as no consensus when the arguments in favor of deletion seemed flawed to me, so I'm absolutely not in favor of the dark forces you allude.
Of course you're completely entitled to disagree with me and the majority of the commenters at that debate, and I'm a human being, with many flaws and defects. For that reason, I encourage you to submit a request at deletion review in order to seek further debate and request the reversion of my decision. I humbly stand by it and I believe I acted correctly, given the circumstances. Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spartan-james

That diff you provided is hilarious. Funny what some annons say, isnt it? --trey 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up; however, I try to AGF...but that only lasts one edit, they it's vandalism. heh...yeah...that was a funny summary...as trey put it...Peace. Spartan-James 03:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

A range block can cause problems, as it will normally block very large numbers of wholly innocent editors. I have blocked the IP you quoted. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal view is, and has always been, that only account holders should be able to edit wikipedia. But this is not the consensus view; I have run it past the community more than once. As I indicated, I understand your problem; it is felt that we should not block some hundreds of innocent editors to remove one bad apple. I suppose this is right, though as you appreciate it can cause problems. Perhaps we must wait for improvements in the software, where I have no expertise. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tvoz... again :)

Dear Tvoz, please, don't worry, no apologies are needed - I understand your point perfectly, and in fact, I apologize if I sounded like you were doubting my good faith, because I know you didn't. I understand your point perfectly, and like I just commented at Sam's talk page, I even share your vies. Unfortunately, sometimes one has to make choices as an administrator that may collide with one's personal preferences, this being one of those cases. There's more I'd like to say to you, but I hope you forgive me right now (real life calls!) and besides, I'd rather save them for an email, for there are other thoughts I'd like to share with you. I hope you're having a beautiful weekend, and please, look at your mailbox tomorrow, please? Love, Phaedriel - 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You have mail! Sorry about the delay, dear... love, Phaedriel - 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The View

Hi, I've noticed that you have made edits to "The View" before, so I thought I would ask your opinion about something. I don't know if you have seen it, but there is a headline in the article called "Viewer Co-Host Consideration", which is obvioulsy self-promotion for the Natalie woman. Do you think it belongs? I don't, but I thought I should try and get another opinion before I took it out. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks. Zackfins54 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Zackfins54 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

my wife posted that... i asked her to. youre quick tho. Robkehr 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

props watching my back....youre quick too..nice work Robkehr 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see ...

Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Proposal_to_dismantle_this_article, since you previously expressed concern about this article. Wasted Time R 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

sock correspondence

You are not helping by continual attacks. I sent an email to Jersyko in reply to his. Read it. VK35 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC) He can tell you about it.

RFC POV

Hi there. You removed a RFC/Biographies item for POV, but I don't understand what you considered POV about it. I reverted, but feel free to reply if you believe I'm missing something. Cmprince 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're just mixing up the RFCs: are you just talking about the Josh Wolf entry? Because I think the Mark Morrison entry is getting caught up in the edits. Cmprince 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR warning and unwarning

I appreciate your having deleted your comment about my edits to Rudy Giuliani. If you read some of the talk page discussion to get the background, you might usefully weigh in now. I'm about to make my real third revert. The editor who wants to delete huge chunks of information from the article continues to press ahead despite the widespread rejection of the change. S/he started a thread to seek approval for the change and then didn't heed the comments made in opposition. We do seem to be in an edit war situation, alas. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo! I'm famous and crap

Holy crap, the controversy section on the Guiliani article is almost half the article and each controversy is at least three times longer than it should be. Guiliani isn't very popular is he? But thanks for the heads up on the link to my comment. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know why KP thinks I've got all the Wiki-administrators in my pocket. The fact is that I've never asked anybody to intervene... ever. I disagree with her/him, but I've tried to keep things civil, which is something she/he seems unable to do. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

answering your message

How about this quote then? "McCain's campaign appears to be on the brink of collapse according to some reports" paraphrasing http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/wsenator211.xml. The neutral view is that McCain may be in deep do do, not because of scandal, but because of no money and no experienced staff. Botrag 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) The Chicago Tribune says the campaign is in "deep trouble". http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gop_03jul03,1,5755851.story?ctrack=1&cset=true I don't think we need to paint a rosy picture, just a true picture. Botrag 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Link?

Do you have a link you could provide for results from the board election? I have not been able to find anything handy. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TY very much! I appreciate the direction fully and completely. Carry on, noble Wikipedian! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They took away my cowbell so I thought the page needed a bit of "Dick". I am a bad, bad person... Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Long time no bump into...

Hi there, Tvoz! It's been a while, hasn't it? I've meant to post a note for you a couple of times, but somehow it just never happened... <sigh>

Well, I just now discovered that you've already made use of the brand, spanking new category that I just created last night (Category:Congressional opponents of the Vietnam War) -- before I was even finished "populating" it. I took a look to see the total number of people I had added to the category after working on that all night, and lo and behold, there were a couple of names that somebody else had added. So now this newborn category has 60 entries - whew! :)

Anyway, I got to wondering who it was that had come along and added those two names, and there you were in the edit histories. How on earth did you spot that new category so soon after it was created?? By sheer coincidence, I had just added two other New York pols (Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Charles Rangel) right before you added your two. Being in California, it's been quite a while since I last heard anything about James Scheuer; and I plum forgot that Ed "how'm I doing?" Koch was ever a liberal! :) Nice additions to the category -- I'm sure there must be some more out there that I've missed, too.

While I've got your attention, there's something else I think you might be interested in. It seems there's a deletionist push under way to eliminate a whole bunch of ethnic subcategories, starting with Category:American journalists. I know you've edited a number of journalist articles, so I thought you might want to put your "two cents" in before it's too late -- this deletion discussion started back on July 9, and so far all but two of the comments (mine and one other) are supporting the request for deletions. I think this sort of decision needs to be made by as large and diverse a group of editors as possible, so I hope you will weigh in. I have no idea what you might say, but I do know that I formed a high regard for your judgement, etc. vis-a-vis John Lennon.

(If this general issue is of interest to you, I've learned that there are at least two other similar discussions taking place (there may well be others that I don't know about): one discussion is about subcategories of ethnic American singers, and the other is about the single ethnic subcategory Jewish American comedians.)

Well, I really need to run now -- glad our paths have crossed again! Regards, Cgingold 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion mania

Hi, I just happened across the CFD for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Italian-American_journalists, and I agree that this was wrongly decided for a variety of reasons. (I.e., purely descriptive facts related to race do not equal racism, there are professional associations of journalists by ethnicity, etc.) I see useful categories deleted constantly, and frankly I'm sick of it. The main problem I see is that very few wikipedians put categories on their watchlists, so a small subset of people (who seemed to have a reflex towards "delete as unencyclopedic") have a disproportionate say in how CFDs turn out. I'd like to see both a deletion review for these categories, and somehow address the larger problem of useful categories being deleted without potentially interested parties ever people informed. If you have any comments or suggestions on either matter, please post them at my talk page. I'm also contact a few other people to join the discussion, feel free to invite others yourself. Thanks. --Osbojos 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is underway on User Talk:Osbojos - if any of my faithful readers are interested in weighing in with opinions and advice, that would be helpful. I think the problem extends beyond Categories, and this deletion frenzy is doing damage to the overall project, so I changed the header of this section here and would very much like wider input on this over on Osbojos' talk page for starters. Tvoz |talk 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz -- Saw your comments over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Italian-American_journalists, and just between you and me, I really think our arguments (your & mine) should have carried the day. After I see how this next CFD goes, I plan to ask for a reversal at deletion review.

Meanwhile, I've just finished posting a long comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Irish-American_singers, which really needs more input as it's going heavily in the wrong (IMHO) direction, too. It won't stay open very much longer, so if you want to get your "two cents" in, time is of the essence... Cgingold 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your wonderful elaborations of/on my comments over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Irish-American_singers! All I can say is, if our arguments don't carry the day then the whole CFD process needs to be turned inside out. Seriously. But I'm still hoping for a better outcome this time. Cgingold 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Hiya Tvoz! Another user has reverted my change. Mark is on the missing list, what should I do please? I put a note on the talk page, but said user has not responded. Cheers Queen.Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

God! Wha' an 'andle eh? Makes yer wonder if the auld feller has a sense of humour, or is as mad as a mongoose! Ta very much for yer help Queen. X0X Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pataphor

I replied on the AfD page. Is that a tongue in your cheek - or are you concealed-carrying a firearm? :) -- Y not? 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I just created a deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_19#Category:Jewish_American_comedians. I thought I would alert you to it in case you'd like to comment. --Osbojos 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I have 3 daughters - one has a Welsh name, one an Indian and the other Greek so no it isn't obvious. You need to self revert as to say she is Bill and Fleur's daughter is OR as there is nothing in the book to confirm that. Sophia 08:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I chose to contact you rather than edit war. If everyone adds something to an article on a book of fiction that is "obvious" to them this article will not stand a chance. How will you decide what to leave or add? It may seem nitpicking but it's how you kill the fancruft and rubbish in the article in the long run. I normally edit in other spheres so an quite taken aback at how casual the standards seem to be. Sophia 09:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair in food redirect

Thanks for undoing the redirect while the AFD is in progress. Did you go to the version before the redirect and save it, or is there some other method? Thanks. Edison 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Historical_New York City neighborhoods

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_21#Category:Historical_New_York_City_neighborhoods

This isn't up for deletion, just for possible renaming. But seeing as you're a denizen of NYC, I thought you might be interested. Cgingold 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama sprot

You're welcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter remarks

I have started to summarize and condense the newsletter remarks section on the Ron Paul talk page. Would you mind weighing in with your thoughts. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kent state photo

I think if you want to add the altered photo you need to have some sourced explanation of its significance. It is not self-evident. Tvoz |talk 09:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Like in the actual article or the image page? Do I need more sources? Or Do I need to explain the missing fence pole? -- AperfectHell 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean that I think you need to have sources who confirm that the the altered photo was used and mostly sources that talk about why this is significant - on its own, just the pictures don't give enough information. And you need reliable, verifiable sources - articles written about it if there are any - that explain why this is a significant point, what the missing pole suggests, etc - not your opinion (even if it is valid) - but what independent, reliable sources have said about its significance. Otherwise it's original research or it's just a doctored photo with no context and therefore no notability. I'm not saying whether it should be in the article - anything that sheds light on Kent State and informs people about it in a balanced and thorough way should be there in my opinion - but I am saying that it needs to have a well-sourced explanation. Tvoz |talk 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant and notable in these days more and more emphasis is put on photo manipulation such as the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy and while we brush it off as a Soviet or Lebanese thing that's not true as history has shown us with the altered Filo shot. It's even more relevant because at Kent State a fence was put up to stop students from demonstrating by airbrushing the fence pole you remove that fact. -- AperfectHell 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source about the fence? If that is true, it might imply some reason for the airbrushing beyond taking the pole out of her head, and if that is sourced, that would be notable and of interest. Of course I know why altered photos are important - my point is only that to just include it in this article, without some context and explanation of why it is notable to this article, might not work. In an article about altered photos - which I haven't looked, but there could be one - absolutely it should be included. And if you have NPOV sources talking about this manipulation in context, great. But this is not an article about the photo, it's an article about the murders, and so I'd want to see some connection drawn to the events of May 4. This is just my opinion, of course. Tvoz |talk 04:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... For praise re HRC controversies dismantling. We'll see how it goes ... already a couple of people have tried unredirecting the article. Wasted Time R 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul is dead, Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead"

Hey there,

I don't know if you are aware or not, but recently Paul is dead was remodelled, in an attempt to begin to bring it back to the standard that got it an FA nomination some time ago. The "Clues" section was cut and placed into a new article, as it was this section that attracted all manner of conspiracy theorists adding their own personal ideas and original research, and made the article too long. Also, some days ago both articles were placed on AfD, but they survived it.

I've done bits on bobs on the articles so far, and extensive work today on the 'suggested clues' article, but should you like to contribute to either, in order to improve them, or indeed if you'd prefer to just post suggestions (on their talk pages, or mine), your help and thoughts as a WP:BEATLES member would be greatly appreciated. Liverpool Scouse 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment needed!

Hey there -- I've been busier than ever at the CFD pages. I know you weren't happy with the results and the process the last time you jumped in, but it's not entirely hopeless. Don't know if you've checked in on Osbojos page recently, but we've actually saved a number of categories from extinction. Anyway, there's a hugely important one going on right now, regarding (of all things) Category:African American baseball players. I almost lost it this time! :) Had to leave and come back to it the next day, just so I wouldn't make a bunch of really intemperate comments. If you can spare a few minutes away from the Obama patrol, please weigh in on this one. Regards, Cgingold 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) PS - I will be sending you an email re Megan Marshack as soon as I can free up a few minutes. :)

hi, just wanted to be sure you know that I sent you that email this morning. Cgingold 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

Please let us know Tvoz, what specifically you find objectionable in the Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie article. If you are going to dispute its neutrality you have to have a reason. --BoogaLouie 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Perhaps it's time to archive your talk page? It's going on to 254 threads so far, with some of the oldest dating back to October last year. Just a thought :) Anthøny 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your editing behavior...

... at Barak Obama, warrants a 24 hrs block for WP:3RR violation. Either stop editwarring, or give me a good reason why not to enforce a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I also replied to this on Talk:Barack Obama, but all reverts in the last few days have been to enforce the ban of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and are therefore exempt from 3RR.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you need to cool down your sysop heels right now. You're stepping way, way out of line here with these threats. Anymore of this and I'll personally go to AN/I to get some community feedback on your behavior. You owe Tvoz an apology. Italiavivi 06:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

archiveurl and archivedate in cite news

Explained here. Template:Cite web has had both of these archive parameters for a long time. I use it to link to copies of articles that can be found at Internet Archive [3], but are no longer available from their original locations. The advantages of this approach are that the original link is preserved within the cite, and the date of archival is clearly indicated. --HailFire 09:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Open

Well, no. I was closing the entries for August 8th, on August 13th; that seems hardly problematic. Please realize that CFD is not decided by vote count, but by strength of argument. For instance, procedural arguments like "keep all and relist separately" do not hold much weight unless there is actual policy to back them up (which, in this case, there's not). HTH! >Radiant< 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I see that the debate was closed slightly under ten hours earlier than usual, because the nominator placed it on the wrong day (note that it is on the August 8th page, but is signed slightly past midnight August 9th). But CFDs generally get most of their input in the first two days, so that's unlikely to be a problem; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Obviously any pages on your watchlist would only have been removed after the category was already processed, so even if I had closed it a day later, you would not have noticed it until after it was already gone.
• Aside from that you seem to be misinformed about the nature of consensus on Wikipedia, which is indeed decided by strength of argument rather than strength of numbers. One reason for that is that for numbers to be useful, one would need to get a significant percentage of editors involved, which given our high popularity would mean at least 10,000 people. Obviously this is impractical. Another reason is that arguments founded in policy, fact, or precedent have more weight than arguments founded on opinion, logical fallacy, or misconception. HTH! >Radiant< 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to try and reform the deletion processes from the way they presently work to the way you believe they should work. Discussions must be concluded at some point. Five days is as arbitrary as any other amount, but keeping them open until everybody is in agreement is not going to work. Also, if you really think that deletion is worse than keeping, I'd suggest you spend some days running new page patrol. >Radiant< 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "dismissing an argument" and "recognizing a fallacy". >Radiant< 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you not an admin? You've been around a while and haven't been involved in any untoward drama that I'm aware of. You may want to think about it. Raymond Arritt 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating you (if you want it)

I was about to ask you the same thing. Admin, accept or reject:

ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

reference overload?

Hey Tvoz. Long time no see! Things are going great, and I must say, your pearls of wisdom a few months ago were more correct than I ever could have imagined. I am heading down to The George Washington University this September, an amazing place that seemed to find me, rather than the other way around. Anyway, the Science article. I added 3 more references to settle the prestige debate, and hope to set that guy straight! Cheers. --rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me . . .

Just got your message: I didn't make that edit. I've been looking up rappers all day, and I don't know anything about them (don't especially know anything about any of the current presidential candidates, and when I make edits, I tend to use my wiki account), and looking at what "I" was last editing, it was Arthur and Brett Favre. If you were to look at those, there would probably be vandalism there too. I guess someone is using my IP address, perhaps as a proxy. It sounds farfetched, but in all honesty, you should probably track whatever this IP does, or get an Admin to do it.
71.242.42.133 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

McLuhan

Well, my edit is based on the facts that he taugtht at the University of Toronto, a secular institution, for many years (admittedly he was sited at a Catholic college affiliated with that secular institution) and at Cambridge (39-40). Mamalujo 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, as to his faith being "private", I don't think that is really an accurate representation see I came in on my knees.- McLuhan and Catholicism. He is a self identified Thomist. I think to any perceptive reader his work is suffused with his world view. The fact that he may have believed theorizing Christ "was anti-religious, certainly anti-Catholic" (to cite the prior source) does not really mean his faith was "private". Mamalujo 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Doh

Don't know how I missed that the Fortress stuff was already elsewhere in the article. I was tempted to cut it out completely as it was, but I think your change works best. · jersyko talk 03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley Foods

I have just finished reading the discussion page for this article. You have been amazingly patient in explaining the problem.. I am surprised, and most impressed, that you never appear to have succumbed to what must have been a very strong temptation to cut-and-paste. Bielle 03:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I can't see how the matter could be better explained. I am reminded of my grandmother who used to call me "wilfully obtuse" when I refused to see what she was saying because I did not want to see it. (This usually arose around my failures to meet household responsibilities or to meet curfews.) So many editors don't seem to grasp the difference between "verifiable" and "true", and between conclusions purely logic driven, like those in a mathematical proof, and those requiring leaps of faith, otherwise known as "original research". Keep up the good fight. I suspect it will all settle out at the mediation review. Bielle 04:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look at the article again tomorrow to see if I think I can help, by whatever means. It is too late tonight. It doesn't help that the article is also poorly written, does it? Bielle 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See my just-posted note in on AFD for keeping Bay Valley Foods. I do agree with Bielle that the article could be better written. Bellagio99 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italia^vivi 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

You wrote: Zsero, what part of the above did you not understand? You do not have consensus to remove the age difference from the article. It is being discussed - and several other editors have weighed in with comments about this. You can't unilaterally decide to take it out when others want it in. Again, you have no justification for removing Ferrylodge's words which were a suggested compromise and to which several editors have reluctantly agreed as an reasonable possibility. Make your argument on the Talk page for why it should be out, but don't just take it out - unless you are trying to fan the flamses instead of extinguishing them

Tvoz, it is you and Italiavivi who do not have consensus to put the difference in. As I have exhaustively demonstrated, it was out and everything was peaceful until Italiavivi insisted on inserting it. Since then several editors have removed it, not just me - look at the history; meanwhile neither of you have given even one substantive argument for why you want it in - it's been nothing but "we want it in" and demanding explanations from everyone else for why we want it out. If you want it in, make an argument for its relevance. Until then, your preferred position is not privileged, and you have no more right to put it in than I have to take it out again. Zsero 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, as you know, I've never posted at your talk page before, but I would like to do so now. The following all support keeping out of the Fred Thompson article the ages when they got married, and the age difference when they got married: Ferrylodge, Bytebear, Zsero, Sbowers3, Arzel. Various other editors (including yourself) feel differently. But according to WP:BLP, it is the responsibility of the person adding or re-adding information to justify their edits. It is not up to anyone to "prove" why a statement should be deleted. The burden of proof rests on the "includer", not the "deleter". In this case, as Zsero has documented, their ages at marriage have been in this article for only a small period of time.Ferrylodge 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But your facts are not correct. Can we move this to Talk:Fred Thompson please? I have replied to you there. Tvoz |talk 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennon stuff

No, that was just what I was looking for. It has been pretty sloppy on some of those pages, and it just needs clean-up. Good work, and thanks. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that YouTube can't be used, primarily because the link can go down at a moment's notice. For similar reasons, Imdb isn't all that reliable, either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I was aware. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am not discounting it as a source, Tvoz. I am stating (and Six and Cop seem to keep missing this in their replies), that it shouldn't serve as the ONLY source. Look at some FA articles. Look at how many sources they all have. None of them have less than 50 citations. And yet, we are supposed to be content with one or two? I think we need independent confirmation of the statements being presented - statements that purport to be the exact conversations and motivations for people. Unsourced statements.
Of the three, Kane is the best of the three sources, which I've already said, but to be encyclopedic, we need more confirmation than just one or two person's say-so. It would be best if it were confirmation from someone who had nothing to gain or lose by telling the utter, unvarnished truth. Kane was Lennon's friend. Pang was a primary subject of the story, so it would be unfair (and unrealistic) to assume her pov is going to be neutral. And Goldman? Goldman is a hack several evolutionary rungs lower than scum like Kitty Kelley. Goldman could write that the sun rises at dawn, and I would be compelled to check and make sure. He's that untrustworthy. He hated everything about his life, and it showed. Including him as a source is akin to including a Klansman's views when evaluating the Civil Rights Movement.
I guess you could say I have some opinions of the man :). Fortunately, they are shared by folk much, much smarter than I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't very kind about Kane, but he is a lot closer to an actual source than Pang or Goldman. Keep in mind the editing behavior that had begin to rub me the wrong way. Perhaps I added an extra helping of the Harsh that wasn't really necessary.

And yeah. Seraphimblade is pretty friggin' brilliant. He and Erik are the two more level-headed folk I am on good terms with who know how to carve people into puppy chow when they get out of line, and make them feel bad that it had to happen. All the more reason to pay attention to his advice when he advises me how to sidestep citation issues (and not dash the "Beatle Experts" upon the jagged Valley of My Disdain - lol). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon, and blocks there arising

Thanks for your note. User:Arcayne didn't like the fact he had been blocked, even though the tariff expired while he was off-wiki. I explained my reasons on his talkpage (to nip in the bud a possible escalating edit war - or "15 minutes timeout", if you prefer) and suggest that he work with you - and the other party - to resolve the matter. I quite like the fact he didn't care for the block, because I believe no good editor would. Hopefully you will be able to work with him, since he seems to understand policy and stuff. I trust you have the time. I will not enforce any further block on either editor, unless you request it, to try and get a resolution. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Please don't tell me you have just gone on wikibreak....!

(copied from my talkpage re Free Images)I guess the help pages are the place to start. My (somewhat shaky) understanding is that by linking to the addy of the pic you get the details of the license, if it says GDFL (or GDFL, I never can remember the middle sequence) or Public Domain then it is free. It is likely that there will be a help page link around the licensing bit for folk like thee and me. I hope this helps.

Being an admin is okay, the rewards are not what I expected - but then I misread porcupines for concubines so I am to blame, I guess! LessHeard vanU 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon - Removing tags

Why should there be a cite tag for things that are clearly shown on an album/CD? Doesn't make sense. If that's the case, there should be tags at the end of every sentence. Sixstring1965 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Wikipedia standards

I've given your friend a reminder concerning Wikipedia standards of conduct. Raymond Arritt 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Tvoz! I was so confused when I first tried to get a picture. Of course I would be happy if anyone found it helpful (I remember asking for input a while back at the Vpump, but I don't think people want to see another "essay"). Linking is fine, and input to make it better is finer (it's been a while since I worked on it, basically, I wanted to get my thoughts down while they were fresh). From what I've been able to gather afterwards, I'm thinking that just asking for the CC license is probably the way to go (I remember being uncomfortable with GFDL and images, but I'll have to go back to see why. . .probably tomorrow)
I think it might be useful as a "how to" on some of the image policy/guideline pages, but I wanted to have some feedback before I linked it (Lately, I had just forgot about it).

About the "jumping in" . . .I don't remember why, but I have Raymond's talk page on my watch list. I got bored, so I thought I would see what all the hubbub was about after your comment showed up. Take care, R. Baley 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagcruft

What a wonderful term! And so necessary here on Wikipedia. Thank you for teaching it to me, and for deleting it when you see it--it's one of my biggest pet peeves about this project. Jeffpw 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Elementary school, my Dear Watson

Are you referring to the Pang boy, or the Lennonista? Frankly, I try not to judge on age, as some of the better editors I've seen here in WP are younger than me, and have good heads on their shoulders. Immaturity is clearly not age-specific. I've posted to Six' User talk page as well as cross-posted to the article's discussion page, trying to illustrate for the other users as well as Six the reasoning for higher citation needs for BLPs. And look, he's reverted out the tags again. Someone is flirting with 3RR... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the Hufflepuff thing. Yeah, I used to tag those as WP:NOTGAY. I've grown tired of doing that, though. I've cited stuff via cn tags to specifically idnetify which statements need citation. Not all of it is terrible, but enough of it is that a general unreferenced tag at the top of the article might provoke a visiting user to remove the section completely, or nominate the article for AfD. I would prefer to have the article improve rahter than just mark it as a toxic waste site. Six' last comment is probably going to get them blocked if it isn't removed in the 10 minutes I gave him, as I've had about all the abuse I'm planning to put up with from him. Maybe some time cooling his heels in a block will teach him a lesson, though I'd hate to see it happen. Seen alongside his misrepresentation of image tags and other uncivil comments, he'll probably get blocked for a longer period than normal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Still got it (Never lost it)

ha ha, I never left, love. I've been milling around constantly but with the Scouser and the Austrian gone, weeell the little group is on hiatus. Also, I've tried to stay clear of the Jockson page because invariably when I go on it I get blocked.

How are yoou?--Crestville 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been drfiting really, I've nothing to go at. Hopefully Chuck and Edge will get bored of life and return to us soon.--Crestville 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Barack Obama

I changed it because the templates do not take a huge amount of space at the top of the page when in full form.

And I think that is just a rumour. I doubt they would completely ruin the "gritty" feel of Casino Royale by casting them in Bond 22 - • The Giant Puffin • 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Schumer article

Hey, sorry about removing the Drum Major Institute info. That was a mistake, made trying to combat the recent constant vandalism I'm sure you're growing tired of as well. Fifty7 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I don't. I thought I had removed it during the vandalism reverts. Fifty7 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a voice of reason

Hi Tvoz, thanks for your imput in regards to wp:mosbio and the Fred Thompson article. I sort of got the ball rollong but don't have the time or will power right now to continue with it. Its so funny how one little word can drastically change an article or have such a large impact. It seems like I get into alot of "battles" over really, silly minor points that actually are quite significant to the article/project (or at least thats my take :) ) Anyways, again thanks for vocalizing our shared opinion, since Ferrylodge seems pretty "militant" and unwilling to compromise, IMHO of course :) Cheers! --Tom 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source

I know there is a page out there specifically about using Wikipedia as a source (And it's not WP:SOURCE), but I can't remember what it is and me rummaging through the site is coming up blank. But the fact that Wikipedia is a self-published website written by anonymous editors means that it doesn't meet WP:RS. So any mirrors of Wikipedia would, by definition, also not meet the reliable source standards. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If listing his quotes from yesterday is in violation, then, once again, this website proves its bias.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hi Tvoz. I'm sorry about the original misunderstanding and the "laundry list" thing. Here is the explanation for that. It has been going on for a few days. I had not edited the article for a few weeks and when I came back, practically the entire thing was about abortion. It has taken days of fighting tooth and nail for editors to be able to come up with a compromise that is suitable for one editor, and I was afraid that he was attempting to slowly return the section back to the mess it had been. Very sorry!--Gloriamarie 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The POV thing is still there, but mostly on the part of one editor. Many editors have been driven away by his consistent behavior. It is difficult to reach any sort of compromise on even the smallest phrase, it seems, without days of discussion and what seem like hundreds of comments saying the same thing over and over. It's very frustrating. I don't consider this POV editing due to the background of the dispute, but it's good to have fresh eyes coming to the article anyway. The thing about the position is that it's best understood when discussed fully, which it is now under the Political Positions section. It's not as easy as saying he's "pro-life" when for some reason he gets a 65% rating from NARAL and most "pro-life" politicians get a rating closer to 0%. It's best to explain it. That's my position, anyway.--Gloriamarie 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm concerned about; mainly I do not want the issue to devolve into going around and around with one editor adding something, then another, then another and then having a whole paragraph on abortion in the lead. You're convincing me, though, and I think it's fine to have it in the lead. (The editor's name starts with B and ends with 4.)--Gloriamarie 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Freddie and the Dreamers

Nice title! I agree it's not worth getting into more of a tangle about, but I do find it irritating that some editors don't seem to be au fait with the idea of an unbiased encyclopaedia that presents facts unvarnished by the (frequently politically motivated) preferences of the subject. American political partisans do sadly seem to be overly active at times. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Yes, thank you for your thorough response. I'll respond later today. Arrow740 01:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

Editors were given a chance to source the information and simply ignored same. This information has been unsourced for months and was tagged in July of this year. In fact, if anything more unsourced information has been added. I wonder how much work is being putting in by editors who fail to put in a source for their information. Makes one wonder if no source exists or is it from an unreliable source which they do not want to reveal? I got tired of asking so I thought deleted it would get some attention. And yes I do wonder about the veracity of the information. I have done my share of editing and per Wikidia guidelines, I wouldn't dream of putting information w/o a source. Moreover, some of these persons are quick to challenge unsourced information they do not agree with.Mysteryquest 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're famous!

ZOMG!! I'm not worthy! You totally made it into The Washington Post. Too bad it is only for removing a picture of a naked black men from Obama's article. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tina! Saw the post article. --Pleasantville 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (aka Kathryn Cramer)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Making a Washington Post story for your vandalism reverting skillz is worthy of a barnstar.[4] Congratulations! B 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty awesome Tvoz! R. Baley 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there you are in the Washington Post, fighting the good fight. Carry on, Tvoz :) · jersyko talk 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. :) --Knulclunk 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tvoz, congrats on the Wapo article! A while back I too got interviewed, in conjunction with the HRC article ... for a blog that has about 1/100000 the readership of the Post ;-) Wasted Time R 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I added your interview to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs page, Wasted. You were able to get a lot more words in there than I was! Tvoz |talk 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. :) --andreasegde 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the article! I talked to Jose, too, but seems that the Mitt Romney page I frequent wasn't interesting enough or something. Maybe he just didn't like my pseudonym, or that he couldn't cast partisan motives because of it? :) Oh, and you may be interested in a similar article in The Huffington Post last month. Jose said that he'd been working on his piece when the HuffPo piece came out, and had to delay his article due to it. Pro crast in a tor 07:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that article to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs page. Tvoz |talk 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we have the URL. please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jossi - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_2.html

Thanks everyone! Just doin' my part to make you all look good....Tvoz |talk 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Welcome to the club. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you my dear! I'm a glutton for any kind of praise – no pride here. ;) --G-Dett 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

True...

but I think it reads better this way. :) Right back at you! Cheers, faithless (^speak) 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha I originally thought that's what you meant, but then I got confused. Actually there was an edit conflict, you must have submitted yours seconds before I tried to submit mine, so I just backed out and posted it again. Then I read what you had written and realized we both said the same thing, but oh well. :P faithless (^speak) 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Republican?

It doesn't help Hillary when people think she is lesbian. E343ll 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded on this user's talk page, but I have to say thanks for this new addition to what people think I am doing here. Tvoz |talk 21:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re HRC activity

No, not familiar with Dereks1x actions. Regarding your previous query about HRC List of controversies section, my plan has been to get HRC article "complete" in my mind, bring it to FA nomination, and then see what the FA reviewers think about it. Wasted Time R 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, any cites you want to work on, go for it! I saw you did a couple that were embedded within long footnotes, I had forgotten those and there are some more, if you do the rest of those that would be great. Wasted Time R 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani and The Washington Post

Hi. No problem about the Giuliani article.

I saw the headline on the cover of the Post, but I never got a chance to read the article. I've been very busy at work lately, but I pop by here every once in a while — much more than I should — to take a break from work.

I just read it, though, and wow! That's great! Let me know if you'd like a paper copy of the article that you can frame. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was serious about the paper copy. I live in DC and get the Post delivered, and I'm almost certain that I haven't thrown away last week's papers. E-mail me and I'll send it to you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jake and Brokeback

What's really ironic about the situation is that all of the involved fighting editors are gay, all liberal, and still fighting and accusing each other of bad faith and an agenda in editing it. The amin instigator has written that he is more intelligent than the rest of us, and is certainly more politically to the left than most here (though I am pretty far left,myself). I agree it's sad, but utterly typical of the 'pedia. Jeffpw 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Building Blocks

You're quite right that said user could well have been blocked for a month or more. I blocked him for a week simply because I did so before checking his block log. I'd have no objection to you unblocking him and blocking for the duration you'd prefer :). I think no matter how long he's blocked for, he'll just have to be reblocked when it expires, so the length is more or less irrelevant. Longer is probably better though. - Nunh-huh 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop being lazy. I've set the block to a more appropriate length. - Nunh-huh 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not that you were suggesting it. I was being lazy :) - Nunh-huh 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Brotherhood

You tagged Brotherhood (2006 TV series) as needing to be rewritten. I know my edits yesterday need copy editing but a complete rewrite seems a bit OTT for an article which is just starting to expand to me. Perhaps you could make some suggestions on the talk page to guide me in improving the article.--Opark 77 09:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot Search

Hello - thanks for the plot search link. It didn't find my book, but I will use it in the future. The book I was searching for was "Rogue Queen", but I was sure that there was the work "Hive" in the title which made it very hard for me to find. Uncle uncle uncle 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton now FAC

FYI, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a now an FA candidate. We'll see what people say.... Wasted Time R 05:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy.

Just found your name in a Wash Post article covering folk who've been keeping things straight at the candidates' articles this campaign season. Doesn't look like Wikipedia's changed much in two years; y'allre having too much fun around here nowadays with all the naked black guy spam and Freddie-wars, I reckon. Keep up the good work. Shem^(talk) 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your change

Your change is fine, no need for anyone to revert. Often when you get that error page after a submit, the change went through ok; the error is a session time-out due to the length of time it takes the servers to render the new page in your browser. Wasted Time R 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Manipulation of WP

Thanks for the heads up; I noticed that the user had been banned when I tried to investigate the problem. Regards, Espresso Addict 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New Clinton FAC

I saw your note at Raul's page; I should have some time later today to dig back in and do some sample edits; I haven't checked lately, but the referencing was not in good shape when I looked earlier in the week. It might be good to take some time to clean up those issues before coming back to FAC. I'll make some sample edits later today to show the things I mean (but then I have travel at the end of the week); as I recall, the bottom of the article used poor quality references and the refs weren't even correctly formatted (this may have changed since I last had a chance to look). And, unless it's changed since I last looked, there are still sections that could benefit from some trimming. Actually, Ron Paul is in dismal shape and has some alarming supports, so I first need to carve out time to enter a decent Oppose there. I only got caught up on FAC talk page/GimmeBot bookkeeping yesterday. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RE Reagan article

Dear Tvoz Thanks for not deleting my work out of hand, and for fixing the error I made in leaving out some of the previous text that you seem to have known I deleted accidentally. Yes, I did watch that convention on TV, every night of it, and I recall it quite vividly. I will admit that although I knew the rough vote totals, for example I remembered that Nixon needed six hundred something votes to win on the first ballot, and I remembered that most votes against him were switched to votes for him after he had clinched the nomination anyway, I got the EXACT figures for first ballot votes, before and after switches, from the wikipedia site about the 1968 Republican Convention. As for Nelson Rockefeller being one of Nixon's opponents for the 1968 nomination, I never knew that anyone ever doubted it to the degree that it would require a citation. To me it is just as well known as the fact that Howard Dean was a contender for the Democratic nomination in 2004. As for the strategies and hopes of Nixon's opponents going into and at the convention, (hoping to deny Nixon a first ballot majority and that subsequent ballots could find Nixon delegates deserting to other candidates)that was quite clear to anyone watching the coverage of the convention on TV. That is why I didn't intend it to be humorous when I cited the fact that I watched it on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.93.228 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See User talk: 199.44.214.2 for reply. Actually, see Talk: Ronald Reagan. Tvoz |talk 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheney vandalism

I've deleted the image and warned the uploader. Thanks for the heads up. Secretlondon 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Prepare to laugh

[[5]] What I find funny is that Durova actually considered it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan "Just Say No"

It's understandable that you didn't understand it because the critics don't have a good argument haha! In all seriousness, I reworded it and guarentee it makes more sense now. If not, well I must be misunderstanding what you're saying, and you might have to ask another user (maybe User: Wasted Time R). I hope you get it, though. Best, Happyme22 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheney and Senator Barack Obama are eighth cousins

What is the point of having REF's for things that are NOT in the article? Just saying: "Read please - already covered in notes 3 &4" is pointless. The content needs to be in the article, not as a reference, that makes no sense what so ever. Think before you make such comments. WikiDon 07:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was rude. I replied on the user's talk page. Tvoz |talk 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to HailFire but you answered? What ever. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What ever. I was merely reading the news and found that interesting story, along with interesting stories on Jorja Fox, and others. As you can see, my primary interest is about beagles, not genealogy, which reminds me I need to fix some things. Bye! Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a balloon hello? Member - Society of Dog Lovers 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfC for Thompson

It looks like an impass to me. Thompson supporters look like they will fight to their last breath to keep this off Wikipedia. Fred Thomspon is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia, # 57 I think. Fee Fi Foe Fum 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

• It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Official photos and POV

(I'll start by leaving a comment persuasive to Jersyko on a previous occasion.)

I argued that official photos carry a POV incompatible with the Wikipedia philosophy and you asked me to elaborate.

Photographs tell a story; official photographs, whether distributed by government organizations or political campaigns have undergone careful crafting to project a controlled image for an ideological purpose. While no photograph (or statement for that matter) realizes perfect neutrality (because, even with attestible assertions, willful inclusion and exclusion shape a message), an official photograph in a Wikipedia biography counts as the visual analog of a subject writing his or her own biography.

I have attempted to offer photographs I took at a recent event meant to capture Edwards as he seemed on that day, attempting neither to vaunt him nor to paint him in an unflattering light. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have neither decided to vote for him or not, so I avow that I do in fact portray him from a neutral viewpoint. Dvfinnh 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

...Additional remarks: The entry for John Edwards profiles the man in many roles - senator (yes), but also presidential candidate, vice-presidential candidate, lawyers, husband, father, son, etc. An informal photograph of the man (as opposed to the senator) better projects the intended scope. Dvfinnh 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving this comment and my reply to Talk: John Edwards for wider input. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Yeah wat's up with the latest comments on the FAC page? I commented on them and left a reply at the bottom, but everything the user said (with the possible exception of two or three cms) won't help the article or are completely meaningless. Happyme22 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I too was suprised. Oh well; the copyedit goes on, and I'll definitely re-nominate. Thanks for the help! Happyme22 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My signature

I'm assuming it was a accident, but I'm confused as you why you edited my signature here. It was in a separate place—not sure how that happened. Pagrashtak 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, nice to meet you too. Pagrashtak 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta, are you asking to have a phone conversation with someone about the difficulties you are experiencing here? Tvoz |talk 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) - my interpretation is that he is. He also responded affirmatively, but on his own talk page rather than yours. Do you know if there is anyone who would be willing to / have the patience to do that? —Random832 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tense Formations

Hi there Tvoz, I also posted this in the Mary McCartney talk page, but I thought I'd put it here as well. I'd just like to say that I believe I was correct in changing the tense from 'was' to 'is'. Before I changed the opening sentence, it read as follows Mary Anna McCartney Donald (born in London on 28 August 1969) was the first child born to rock photographer Linda Eastman McCartney and Paul McCartney of The Beatles. Here, 'was', seems to point out that she no longer 'is' the first child of Linda and Paul, and I read this to sound as though she had died, or 'was' no longer their child, which is impossible. Therefore, I believe my change was correct, whilst she 'was' born, she 'is' and always will be the first child of Linda and Paul, this fact will never change. :) Gbrading 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk: Mary McCartney - hope others will weigh in on this. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

White House

Just wondered if your interested here - we could use your input. Thanks, Happyme22 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

kent state

"killing of unarmed student protesters" works. Thanks --Knulclunk 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenspan Edit

I am curious why a direct quote from Alan Greenspan regarding Ronald Reagan would not be considered appropriate, but a third party reference is? A third party reference runs the risk of taking a quote out of context. That is a problem that often takes place in media reporting when quotes are taken out of context. It would seem that getting a quote directly from the source would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Henry 1776 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your comments. I am learning a great deal about this endeavor since I first logged on last spring.

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with your explanation that refers to "reliable secondary sources". Any secondary source can also cherry pick comments to support ideas being advanced in an article. I have just read Alan Greenspan's book. In the book he makes both positive and negative comments about Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush. However, in the Wikipedia article no Greenspan quotes are listed for Carter or Reagan. Greenspan quotes about Clinton are only positive in nature. I would not mind if both positive and negative quotes from Mr. Greenspan, concerning a particular individual, are included. However, when a verifiable quote is continually deleted, it begins to give the appearance, that censorship is taking place. Several of my student friends are getting concerned about the objectivity of this article.Patrick Henry 1776 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC bot

The RFC bot recently had a downtime, however as of a few hours ago it is back online. It should take five minutes at the most for the bot to update the list. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on the List of massacres article

As you may have noticed, it's a difficult article. On paying you this visit, I've discovered the notion of "inclusionism". Having had my share of troubles with "deletionists" on English Wikipedia, I can only applaud to this initiative (somehow, the ailment is not as severe on the other localised versions of Wikipedia where I happen to be an editor). Has resistance to "deletionism" turned into something more organised? · Michel 12:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel, As a lurker on Tvoz's Talk page, I thought you might be interested in this (altho it is not organized). And I do agree with you about deletionism:

The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist.

The motto of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD is Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet, which translates to "it is generally difficult to judge the worthiness of a particular topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia considering that there is no certain way to know what interests people, but some topics nevertheless are not fit for an encyclopedia." This motto reflects the desire of these Wikipedians to be reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Wikipedia. [Thanks to User:The Wub from whom I copied this motto].

YMMV, Bellagio99 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reference help on the massacre article! :) --Knulclunk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies articles on political figures

Hi Tina ... since you recently were involved at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton in discussion of whether political figures should have Controversies articles, and I stated that the one for Rudy Giuliani had recently been dismantled, I should say that I spoke a bit too soon — the dismantling is being contested by an editor, and that controversies article is now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Your input there welcome if you wish; I am hoping it can serve as a general precedent for at least the other 2008 candidates. Wasted Time R 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy

Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. John J. Bulten 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tickets Please!

Penny for the Guy Missus? LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC) XXX

Ta very much, I promise I won't spend it all at once! Next time you come, you've just gorra av a bash at the Oyster card, they'll really do yer head in! Cheers Queen. Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) XXX

ROHA

Roha is one of those annoying trolls that has a huge pool of IPs available to him. We've only had a handful of people like that before, like User:Gibraltarian; because of him, the entire territory of Gibraltar is blocked from time to time. If he spikes up again, make a new note on ANI and let me know, and I'll chime in in support of doing what de: did - being vigilant against him and not just letting him run free. ---- Golbez (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Typos

Boy, my spell check really misfired there! :) --Knulclunk (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I sure that is the reference she meant. Thanks for getting the source. You all pro, baby! --Knulclunk (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Massacres and alleged massacres

You asked me a question re Omagh: Why was it removed as an incident where "civilians were obviously not deliberately targeted". It was removed because civilians were not deliberately targeted and it says on top of the page that that is a requirement for an incident to be classed as a massacre. While I personally regard it as such I'm not here to push my POV. Your reinstatement of unreferenced incidents, however, could be interpreted as POV editing. (Sarah777 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Not here please - I'm moving this to Talk: List of massacres for response. Tvoz |talk 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of massacres#Proposal for a new table layout --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Sarah777#List of massacres --Philip Baird Shearer 23:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles and "All Those Years Ago"

Three editors do not disagree with me--please see my talk page, where Ward3001 says he agrees with me. I object to the wording you reverted to because it wrongly conveys the impression that the three surviving Beatles used the occasion of their bandmate's death to reconcile old differences and come together to record a new song in the same recording space. Unless I am mistaken, this was not the case, and, unless I am forgetting something, never was until work on the Anthology project. Please explain the reason to preserve misleading wording when more accurate wording is available. Robert K S (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA

Could you let me know the specific articles where our buddy pal and mate spews his vile? I'm thinking to semiprotect them until he gets bored and crawls back under his rock. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A cappella

The Oxford Style Manual agrees with double "p", so I'm changing the Wiktionary entry which was my reference. Thanks. --F.N. Wombat (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't figure out how to change the single-p Wiktionary entry. I see "A cappella" has its own, more complete Wiktionary article. With your greater experience, can you make a link from the single-p entry to the double-p?--F.N. Wombat (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Hiya Tvoz - just wanted to thank you for helping to fix the Anne Frank article. It's looking a lot better, and I'm going to try to devote some time to working on it also. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Tvoz. With regards to sourcing - I have two biographies (Melissa Muller & Carol Lee) which both cover very similar territory and can be used to cover Anne's life. They're both very good. Also a book from the Anne Frank House, which is a fairly slim paperback, but has some good things, plus a fantastic book about the house, which has heaps of good things. So I think her life is going to be easy enough to cover. I was concerned that this nomination came along at a time when I didn't have much free time to spend here, but now I can spend a little time digging away on it. Some of the talk comments make my blood boil - especially the ones that obstinately press on with their illogical rants despite the fact that they have no evidence, knowledge or experience to support their absurd viewpoints ;-) I don't comprehend Holocaust denial, I truly don't. Best I don't get started on that subject! cheers Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aah! Then you should appreciate June Pointer#Death. I was going to edit it, but I was so moved, I couldn't stop sobbing. I don't mean to be flippant about something that is genuinely sad, but don't you think that must have been some huge deathbed? Poor June, as if she didn't have enough problems, she had to endure being embraced by an octopus. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Noted, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

dershowitz

He's Jewish, but he isn't an Orthodox Jew. Is the aforementioned what you want a source for? --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From Ray Winn

Thanks for your note. Ray W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondwinn (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Judith Giuliani RFPP

Hello Tvoz. After reviewing the situation once again, I've decided to semi-protect the article. The vandalism isn't too high, but still a steady flux of vandalism from the same user using multiple IPs is very annoying indeed for those who work hard to maintain a good article. The semi-protection will last a week, so a vandal break is guaranteed for this period. After the protection has expired, please report any eventual return of the vandal. Best regards, Húsönd 06:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The pipe trick

I wandered about the room going "gaaahhh..." for a while after I discovered [[foo(bar)|]]. Help:Pipe trick is an interesting place... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's trying to say "if you're on page 'blah' then [[/foo/]] becomes [[blah/foo|foo]]. Or something. Think I'll try a bit of experimentation! Tonywalton  | Talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That's it. See Tonywalton/Subpage. Not that useful, especially in mainspace, but cool nonetheless. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I quite like "Selene bless Tonywalton" (us pagans can be picky ;) ) Tonywalton ^Talk 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Derek is back

He's back. Ran for RFA, failed, immediately ran again. Derekhunter 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

CU

This may interest you. Bencherlite^Talk 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Derekhunter

After seeing this, I blocked Derekhunter for not beuing Derek's hunter at all, but Derek himself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cat stevens mediation

Please reply to discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29_Cat_Stevens --BoogaLouie 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know

Today is Sir Sean's B'day! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC) XXX

I knew that! And I almost remembered!! thanks Tvoz |talk 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[6]] Jmegill (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Judith G. article

Thanks for the pointer. I added a bit to Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 based on it. I continue to think that Judi gets a pass on whatever legit-or-bogus security Rudy arranged for her; it was his doing.

Also, in case you haven't seen it, there's now a Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections. I don't know how it will turn out, but the talk page already discusses some of the common candidate article issues we've seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Scheuer

Please direct me to the Wikipedia guideline supporting your reversion of my edit. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me know what you find out. I'm still trying to learn all the guidelines and this is one I had not heard of before. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I had been doing it wrong. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent State shootings category

I think the idea is that if all those other categories are subcategories of the Kent State shootings, they aren't duplicated in the article itself. This isn't always apparent to our readers, I admit, but it's usually the way the category system works. Badagnani (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see! Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lennon edits

Thanks for backing me up. I was struggling about not biting the noob, but i am not really sure that this guy is a noob; he knows how to manipulate wp a little too well. Shankbone might have little in the way of modesty, but he is a pretty solid editor who contributes a lot to the community of WP. Unless the feller comes back with a smart-alecky remark, i think the matter is done. Again, thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Statements about future events

As I said, I will not change the statement in Barack Obama that says if he is elected he will be the first black president. However the issue still bothers me and I'd just like to express or make more clear my feelings about this kind of statement in WP. For instance, in the article on Mars we could say that manned expeditions to Mars are planned, but we shouldn't say, "If expeditions now being planned are successful, Mars will be the first planet, other than Earth, upon which humans have set foot." And in the article on Toyota we can say that Toyota is the second largest car company and is growing faster than GM, but we shouldn't say, "If Toyota's present rate of growth continues, it will pass GM and become the world's largest car maker."

Those are my feelings, although I think that probably most people do not see it the same way. I just wanted to make it more clear, and I am certainly not against Senator Obama becoming the first black president. Thanks for your good work here. All the best. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

help

Could you help get rid of the useless criticisms page of Bill O'Reilly, I saw how passionate you were about the Barack Obama one. And I feel that there are a select few who have totalitarian control of the article, it's title Criticisms of Bill O'reilly. Thanks, and would appreciate it if you could help.RYNORT 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about Romney religious section

Would you care to express an opinion about this?[7] You were one of the editors who argued for the section's current placement. Now the editor you disagreed with is asking if it should be moved further down. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney and Ferrylodge

You and Ferrylodge seem to have some history. Please keep your comments directed toward the contribution and not the contributer, WP:CIVIL. Consider this a warning. I've given a similar message to Ferrylodge as well. Cool Hand Luke 06:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I make it a habit of not opening conversations with Ferrylodge - my comments to him on Talk: Mitt Romney are content responses to his content points, except when he has directed his comments at me personally, in which case I responded accordingly, leaving him to have the last word so that it ends. Being attacked and responding to it is not the same thing as initiating personal attacks. Tvoz |talk 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the context of this dispute (which I did not previously understand), I feel this warning should not count as any kind of black mark against this User:Tvos. In the future, I advise user to delete, ignore, or {{hat}} incivility in the rather than respond to it. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Consciousness Plague.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Consciousness Plague.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I did. Tvoz |talk 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CPC-audio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CPC-audio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)