User talk:Awiseman/Archive/2008/April

Martin Bartlett

Hello ... can you say, WP:CRYSTAL? Also, Tamsyn Armstrong seems rather dubious as to WP:FICT notability ... Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bnei Yehuda Tel Aviv F.C.

The part about the founder is true, I wrote it and I work for the team. The part about the neighborhood being Tel-Aviv's most notorious slum could have been true in the past, probably isn't true now. A matter of opinion actually. I didn't write that part but didn't want to delete it either. Thinking of it again, I think it should be deleted. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I replied on your page --AW (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary (Polly) Finley & Davy Crockett

Davy Crockett's first wife as named Mary (Polly) Finley, and Polly was a nickname. Their children together were John Wesley Crockett, William Finley Crockett, and Margaret Finley (Polly) Crockett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finley4883 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --AW (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carter County

In researching the War of Regulation / Battle of Alamance, I've trekked into and through the Fort Watauga article that you wrote. You link to Carter County, Tennessee on that page. Something doesn't make sense to me on the Carter County page; the early history section is written such as to make Tennessee a part of the Province of North Carolina continously...

As part of North Carolina counties

   * Clarendum;
   * New Hanover Precinct (1729-1734);
   * Bladen County (1734-1749) - current county seat is Elizabethtown, North Carolina);
   * Anson County (1749-1753);
   * Rowan County (1753-1777);
   * Burke County (1777).

...but that doesn't make sense with the first sentence of the next section;

"Carter County was the first permanent settlement outside the original 13 American colonies."

It can't be in North Carolina but outside the colony of North Carolina can it? Doesn't the Proclamation of 1763 come into play? Looking for clarity...Berean Hunter (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page --AW (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler template

Hi Awiseman, I saw your comments at User talk:Xoloz. Unfortunately, Xoloz is currently retired from Wikipedia and might not be able to answer your questions for awhile (although I hope I'm wrong). Although I did not participate, I remember the debates fairly well. I think your question concerned Xoloz's comment here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 14. At the time, {{Current fiction}} had been proposed as a limited alternative to {{spoiler}}, and I believe that's what Xoloz was referring to. The current fiction template, however, was also deleted in a later discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 15#Template:Current fiction. --JayHenry (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still disappointed the spoiler template was deleted. Seems like a useful thing. --AW (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Worthington

Please, please don't undelete deletions under WP:BLP, ever - it's forbidden because of a principle in a recent arbitration case. Next time, it's likely that Arbcom will have your +sysop bit forcibly taken from you. east.718 at 22:56, February 1, 2008

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15. Please, don't ever do that again. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted your sandbox replica — see the deletion summaries, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15, this ruling, and GFDL (albeit a secondary factor) all combined mean that this article cannot exist in any form in any namespace without a consensus to do so. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Thankyou for creating the article. As the original author of the Corey Delaney. I watched as it went through the AFD, the Deletion Review, and then the Misc for Deletion with anoyance because alot of the "delete" votes were obviously WP:IDONTLIKEIT. News.com.au even wrote an article about the deletion!. I have !voted to overturn the deletion and I wish you the best of luck. I look foward to improving the article with you. Just incase I don't see the result, of the deletion review, can you please let me know how it goes on my talk page? Fosnez (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Wikinews, wikinews:Wikinews:Writing an article seems like a decent place to start, but User:David Shankbone would have a much better idea about how to go about this. At the moment the only Wikinews reporting is on the party. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse

I noticed that you added a cleanup tag to the lacrosse page. Can you expand, perhaps on the talk page, exactly what needs to be cleaned up? I'm not saying the page is perfect, but there aren't any glaring problems that I see. Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Territory

Hi there! Glad you like the map. For the boundaries of Jefferson Territory, see this article from the Encyclopedia Americana (bottom of first column, page 5): [1] These are also the boundaries given in the Wikipedia article. The exclamation point is a friendly testament to the frontier spirit. Citynoise (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think you’re looking at the boundary information for Arapahoe county, which is not the same as the boundaries for Jefferson Territory. Check the link from the Encyclopedia Americana again, or the "Establishment" section of the article. Citynoise (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course happy to change if you uncover different information! Citynoise (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Humane Letters

RATHER than debate the merits of the individuals you deleted, add names that would "fit" among those listed; then an entry with a representative list would develop. Your attempt at what you called diversity occurs to me to be vandalism.SLY111 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)SLY111[reply]

See my reply at the article. --AW (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the news (regarding Corey W.)

Thanks for the heads-up. That's a hoot. --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Corey Worthington comment deletion

Because "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." --Geniac (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sense of humor

is as good as your edits.SLY111 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)SLY111[reply]

RE: Beer pong

Hey there, likewise to you too. I'll put a couple other drinking game articles on my watchlist; I'll bet they get messed with a ton. See you around! GlassCobra 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! --AW (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I blacklisted that domain (plus a related domain):

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#studentbeerpong.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Worthington 4.0

I wanted to voice my support for your actions with regard to Corey Worthington. I see you've been taking a shellacking over this, and it seemed right to let you know that there are also Wikipedians who think you took the right course of action. --SSBohio 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. I think most of the arguments against the page are flawed or inaccurate, but there are so many people making them and I'm getting pretty tired of fighting for it. Especially since the recent (2nd? 3rd?) DRV was rapidly closed. --AW (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your actions were well-founded in policy and process. If it takes repeated bouts of speedy/AfD/DRV in close succession to make a deletion stick, then it's hard for me to see that actual consensus to delete has been demonstrated. If anything, it demonstrates that the community is unsettled as to how to proceed. --SSBohio 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. It wouldn't keep coming up if there were consensus.--AW (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. There is clearly NO consensus. And DRVs should not be speedily closed like that. All that does is support the viewpoint that a gfroup of people with administrative powers are forcing their POV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV has been reopened. The plot thickens. --AW (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leila McKinnon

History showed a phenomenal amount of IP vandalism, and some of it contained BLP violations. Such usually indicates a short-term campaign (often by one or two people) in my experience so it's quite normal to semi-protect in those circumstances. Semi- is useful in reducing drive-by without limiting genuine input. Orderinchaos 22:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpass sign

I did not take this photo personally, but I can assure you as I have passed this sign many times before it is located in the township of Mineral, Louisa County, VA right outside of Bumpass, VA. The building in the background is the Mineral Fire Department situated along the railroad tracks right across from the old historic Mineral depot. Beside the fire department is a fast mart across from that is the town office building just over the street from the Mineral Town Square. Is that concise enough? --User:Tripodero (talk) 21:04 , 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --AW (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer pong protection

Given that the vast majority of edits to this article are 1) unconstructive and/or spam, and 2) done by new accounts and IPs, it seems to me that this article would probably benefit from a permanent semi-protection. What are your thoughts? GlassCobra 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just dropping in here. Any thoughts on this proposal? GlassCobra 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. Just wanted to clarify, I didn't mean full protection, I only meant semi-protection. Does that change your opinion? GlassCobra 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, guess I misspoke, I meant permanent semi-protection. Sort of by principle I don't like doing that unless it's totally out of control. I wouldn't oppose it if you put it to WP:RPP, but usually they don't do it permanently unless it's really busy. --AW (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose that's the downside of a busy article. Just wish we had more people watching it, that's all. Anyway, hope all is well. :) GlassCobra 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True that. I'm trying to work on the "Winning the game" and "rebuttal" sections, they're kind of redundant. Got any ideas? --AW (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just edited it a bit. What do you think? --AW (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, you got a good portion of the redundant stuff out. :) GlassCobra 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daschle

"cleaning up refs, and you need a reference that says it's a lobbying firm, and that senior policy analyst = lobbyist" -There were TWO such references. The first one contained a quote from Dole (a registered lobbyist) saying that he had hired TD to complement his own contacts - ie to do the same job with Dems as Dole does with Repubs. The second was an interview with NPR where Dachle had been booked to talk about his job with AB as a lobbyist. If you're going to "clean up" references, please read them, then, on a topic as controversial as this, unless the situation is VERY clear discuss . Umptious (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added that back --AW (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is controversial for reasons connected to the Obama campaign, but, as the links I've used show, TD's job at A&B *is* as a lobbyist. He accepted this title himself in an interview - linked! - with NPR, and Dole said publicly that he (a lobbyist at A&B) had recruited TD because their contacts in the Senate were complementary - ie Dole would lobby the repubs and TD the dems. Again, this is linked. If people don't agree with this reasoning, they should use the discussion page and contact me - just deleting "because I think you're wrong" is not good wiki practice, and in this case stinks of partisanship or a PR firm. I won't be afraid to make a fuss about this and appeal to Higher Authority. So if you disagree, ***discuss***. Umptious (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above --AW (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that although you've refused to accept an interview with Daschle on his lobbying as evidence that he's a lobbyist, you haven't required any source at all for the next sentence, which refers to him relatively positively, as "Daschle is also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress." I.e. you are applying a completely inconsistent standard of proof for information depending on how it reflects on Dachle; this is highly improper. Umptious (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's that positive? it's a job title. --AW (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]