Jump to content

User talk:RightCowLeftCoast/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 2nd Infantry Division (United States) has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): (?<![^\s:])[^\s\]\[\{\}\\\|^\/`<>@:]+@\w+(?!\.htm)(?:\.\w+){1,3} (links: mailto:mcox@atpco.com). It appears that you inserted an e-mail address to 2nd Infantry Division (United States). Wikipedia pages should not contain personal information. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Biography of Living People, specifically the section about personal information.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

10th Cavalry

I replaced your fact tag with a ref. Wording for duties, and where it was deactivated at could use some work if you're up to it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

George Estrada

The subject clearly passes WP:PROF. Please read WP:BEFORE before you nominate other articles for deletion. I fixed up the stub. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonita Vista High School‎

I dropped a warning on the IP's talk page. If it continues (two more times), we can take it to wp:aiv. Since the IP has only been used for vandalism, it might get as much as a one year block. Celestra (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent activity was enough to try WP:RFPP, and we have a two week break from reverting. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of List of people from Chula Vista, California

The article List of people from Chula Vista, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This list of people aren't really that notable. Please read WP:NOTE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UserPrJ 27 talk 06:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Chula Vista, California

I will discuss this matter on the article's talk page. Thankyou, UserPrJ 27 talk 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI section concerning the block evasion

I've taken up the apparent block evasion at WP:ANI. In general, you don't need to use a friendly welcome for users who are obviously just here to disrupt. I usually use a {{welcome-anon-vandal}} for similar circumstances. If you are wondering whether this is that same same individual, click the 'Geolocate' link in the box at the bottom of their talk page. The individual that is causing this disruption will show up as an AT&T dsl account from San Luis Obispo. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject California!

Welcome to WikiProject California!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on California-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join. Here are some suggested activities:

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  -Optigan13 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Asian Medal of Honor recipients

I am going to be submitting it for Featured list in a couple of weeks (once I do some work to it) and too many images are discouraged and considered unencyclopedic. Its just not necessary for theh information we are trying to get out. --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at that. Its still got a little ways to go but I should be able to get it to FL Status in the next month or so. Feel free to contribute if you find something that needs to be corrected. I also have the WWI recipients list at FLC know for review (its on its 3rd try but each time it gets a little better). Please feel free to take a look at that one also if you like.--Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Asian Americans

I have no clue what whipopulation means either, I have to admit it's a bit silly to me. South Bay (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

lower otay reservoir

in future, i would ask that you be a more judicious about executing reverts of an entire edit when only one item or portion is in question. you're not a novice to wp policy, and you should know better. --emerson7 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

40th Division

I understand the motive for your request, but I'd advise you to reconsider the way you ask such things. You come across as very rude and holier-than-thou. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Cite says that '...While you should try to format a citation correctly, what matters is that you add your source; provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting if needed,' and goes on to say that 'Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent.' The only time I've been asked to improve my citations is when I've been preparing articles for A-Class or higher review. (The other thing that annoys me is that you've gone back through my history and found one of the few complaints, and launched it on me without any preamble or prior involvement.) The 40th Inf Div is not ready for any such review, I'm citing my source adequately, and it's consistent with the presentation of the other cites on the page. Back off, and if you wish to make such points in future, make them more politely, otherwise I doubt people will listen. Buckshot06(prof) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, buddy, that at heart I completely agree with what you're saying, and support it. I'm all for the improvement of citations around wikipedia - certainly needs them. But when somebody roots around in my previous edit record to find some request, and uses that to bolster a semi-out-of-line demand from out of the blue, I get annoyed. If you had said something along the lines initially of 'Hey BS06, I've been working the 40 ID article for weeks, adding info and cites, and have got all the

cites apart from yours in proper cite format. Would you mind altering yours to match the wiki convention?,' demonstrating continued work with the subject, I would have probably reacted quite differently. My 2 cents. Buckshot06(prof) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scott Lost

I didn't add Scott Lost to the list of Filipino Americans, all I did was change the word "Guerilla" (in Pro Wrestling Guerrilla) to "Guerrilla". I seriously have no idea whether he has Filipino roots or not.TheFBH (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Raquel Gibson

Hey there. I didn't remove her from the list. Someone else did without explanation. [1]. I merely reinstated her. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. She definetly meets notability ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wainwright MoH

As you requested, I added the reference and citation to the Gen Wainwright page that supports the text that Gen MacArthur opposed Wainwright receiving the MoH. I should have done that last night. I somehow stumbled on the page - can't remember why - and just quickly added the text. I have read this in numerous books, but I was only able to find one this morning. This book, which I recently read, includes the text of the message that MacArthur sent to General Marshall opposing the award to Gen Wainwright. I include excerpts here:

The citation proposed does not repeat does not represent the truth... I do not repreat do not recommend him for the Medal of Honor.

In my opinion, Wainwright and General Edward King, especially King, never received the credit they deserved for the defense of the Philippines. While MacArthur sat in his cave issuing "decrees" they had actual command of the fighting that took place. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Asian Medal of Honor recipients

It should be very close. I have pretty much retired from WP so I recommend you go ahead and nominate it and take the credit. I think most of the content work is done but there is still undoubtedly some fine tuning that needs to be done.--Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What fine tuning do you suggest? And please stay, your edits have been most helpful. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies talk 11:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Commonwealth

Can we have a discussion on the name here instead of the article's talk page because JL 09 has been trolling me for the past few days.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 06:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather prefer that we discuss any name changes on the article's talk page, so that all active users have an oppertunity to have their opinions known, and so a clear consensus can be reached. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias

I never thought that he was "American", but despite the concerns raised about his citizenship on his talk page, editors have nonetheless included him in the categories of "American singer-songwriters" "American male singers" etc. I'm indifferent now as to whether or not he's included in the List of Filipino Americans, but it just goes to show that the definition of what is and what isn't considered "American" is more difficult to define than I had previously thought. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present strikeout

Saw your message at WT:MILHIST. Looks like vandalism to Template:Campaignbox Iraq War. Should be fixed now. -- saberwyn 08:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and looking out. I just didn't want to undo something that was done on purpose, for a valid reason, with consensus of active editors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Milhist bio guidelines

Thought I'd reply here to avoid further complicating the thread. When facilitating complex discussions on WP, I've found that if discussion seems to be running down without any resolution, summarising progress (in for example a new sub-thread under a level 3 heading) can help to keep everyone focused on the topics under discussion, and can identify areas where there are misunderstandings as well as gradually winnowing out those where there's agreement. It also makes judging consensus easier, if there's a a need for some form of adjudication at any point. Also, if you want to poll at any point, don't be put off by my comments; the discussion has been very productive so far but sometimes polling can be a useful final phase once most of the objections have been heard and addressed. Just my 2p-worth ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan Parental Abduction

I'm kinda lazy. I know that if I leave proper verifiable citation, someone else wiki it. I'm sorry that you are a bit annoyed but if you leave it for a while, it get magically fixed. :) Vapour (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not annoyed, I am just providing a kindly reminder. Furthermore, it doesn't get magically fixed, I have been the one who have been properly formating your references. Therefore, if you can assist me by adding the references properly formated, it would help a great deal.
One other thing, the recent IP editor who has joined us in editting the article, have been making changes that are at times unsupported by reliable sourced, verifiable, references. If you can tag or remove those changes that the IP has done that doesn't meet said benchmark, please mark it accordingly with the fact template, or delete it, with explination in the summary. Thanks. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict is annoying so you have a go first. I'll come back to it when you are done. Vapour (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm finished. However, I have noticed that a couple editorials have been used as sources. This does not meet Reliable source criteria, therefore, after your most recent edits, I will remove those references and replace them with fact tags. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Tony Santiago

I read your comments and regardless of your vote of "delete", I want to thank you for the kind words. Hey, thank you for serving also. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no thank you for your service. Where as I spent my time at BAMC, you earned a Combat Action Ribbon and a campaign medal. Your service is worthy of record, and your present work at advocating Hispanics in the military is something to be commended. I hope you understand why I stated weak delete at the afd nomination. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gina de Venecia

An honorary doctorate is always considered a notable award, so I consider that Gina de Venecia is notable. Her husband's notability does not enter into this. She is notable herself. -- Eastmain (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I am getting a WP:3O, via a noticeboard, as to whether honorary degrees are considered "notable award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO, as I disagree with that opinion, but am looking for a consensus of active editors if that is the case. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

international parental abduction in Japan

Hello, on international parental abduction in Japan:

-It has often occurred while both parents are *still* living in Japan. This is very common and well known. Your definition that one parent, who is a Japanese citizen and resides outside of Japan and then returns to Japan, does not cover the numerous cases of international parental abduction that occurs while both parents are still living in Japan.

For example:

The Amy Kalmus story: http://crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/per-ak.html

There's also a recent news broadcast about another case: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/10/13/lah.japan.custody.morrey.lg.cnn?iref=videosearch

Again, these cases are VERY common and well documented. I can send you more links if you not convinced.

In addition, international parental abduction in Japan also encompasses abduction by non-parents such as Japanese grandparents. One famous case is the Paul Toland case (please google his name). His Japanese mother-in-law now has custody of his daughter. This is not a rare case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.213.140 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do what I can to get those references included in the article, thanks! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please add the references to support your changes. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there. I would like to thank you for your effort to uphold wikipedia policy and standard. Without your demand for verification, I would never have researched this topic in the way I did. Cheers! Vapour (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the end, even though editors can bump heads at times, the idea is that everyone adding and editting with the best interest of the article in question, the article can become something well researched, expansive, and useful to any casual reader. Look at how much has been done amoungst all the editors, primarily you (so you too deserve a significant amount of credit), have gotten this article to where it is today. Once we're done adding things (if there is ever a time, we should copyedit the article for grammer, spelling, style, and the like, and see if we can get this to be a A lvl article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
And some day, I will try to learn how to do citation. I'm not that technically inclined. :)Vapour (talk)

Japanese law

Not quite sure. "Self-help (law)" is considered illegal in almost all jurisdiction. Plus, Japan use primary caregiver doctrine as main criteria for deciding the welfare of child. Therefore, if the father abduct children from primary caregiver without use of the force, he could still be charged as it is detrimental to the welfare of children. Another thing I should mention is that the writer of article (Ms Lah) has a bad rep in Japanese version of blogspher (2Chan) for being persistently critical of Japan. The fact that she holds a very strong Korean identity and that she "[thinks] about the larger question of being Korean every single moment." doesn't help. I have no idea why CNN placed her as Tokyo instead of Seoul correspondence. Personally, I'm inclined to suspect that she took the quote out of context. Anyway, who am I to judge. I'm a Japanese and I do feel that most Western reporting about this made quite few false implications. That CNN quote is pretty much in line with the perspective that Japanese abnormality is the cause. Vapour (talk)

I responded in the talk page. Please note that the sentence also doesn't fit in the paragraph, irregardless of its accuracy. Wikilot49 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)wikilot49

Asian Americans

I am seeking to include both Vanessa Hudgens and Norah Jones' photos in the Asian Americans infobox, and I am requesting you to support thsat decision. I believe that the presence of their photos in the Filipino American and Indian American infoboxes warrant the inclusion in the article. I would also like to point out that I am currently blocked but this rule ([does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user,]) allows me to continue to edit anonymously. -23prootie (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.108.50.2 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, RightCowLeftCoast. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Ash (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of talkheader

Per this edit, {{talkheader}} is used primarily for "active talk pages that attract commentary from inexperienced editors". For example, it is commonly added to talk pages that generate traffic from IP's. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese Americans

I noticed an exclusion of Vietnamese in the Asian American infobox. They have a opulation of over 1 million, maybe you could check that out.--23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.9.201 (talk)

Opps! My bad, I forgot to add them to the approval category, I will go ahead and add them. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request Inclusion for Asian Americans talk page

Filipino American male representative

Votes in support of Jose Calugas
  1. support RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. support Myasuda (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. support 23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Votes in support of Allan Pineda
  1. support JL 09 q?c 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. support Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese American female representative

Votes in support of Kristi Yamaguchi
Votes in support of Miyoshi Umeki
  1. support RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. support 23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Representative proposal (2nd round)

Due to lack of support of consensus during the previous consensus period, or lack of nomination all together a new period of time shall be openned up for nomination for those categories that did not already have a nominee, or woes nominiee did not receive support. This new nomination period shall be open immediatly and last until 24 December 2009. If only one individual is nominated in a category, their nomination will stand as having received consensus of active editors and will be approved. If more than one individual is nominated in a category, a consensus period shall be opened for that category. All nominees should be politically neutral as has been previously agreed to.


Nomination(s) for Taiwanese American female representative

Nomination(s) for Taiwanese American male representative

Nomination(s) for Bengali/Bangladeshi American female representative

  • Norah Jones, multi-Grammy-winning jazz musician (no female Bangladeshi-origin available). --23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination(s) for Bengali/Bangladeshi American male representative

Nomination(s) for Pakistani American male representative

Nomination(s) for Sri Lankan American female representative

Nomination(s) for Sri Lankan American male representative

Nomination(s) for Tibetan American male representative

Nomination(s) for Lao/Laotian American female representative

Nomination(s) for Lao/Laotian American male representative

Nomination(s) for Hmong American female representative

Nomination(s) for Vietnamese American female representative

Nomination(s) for Vietnamese American male representative

Nomination(s) for Indonesian American female representative

Nomination(s) for Indonesian American male representative

If this is User:23prootie, I must remind you that you are banned, regardless of how right or wrong that block maybe. I suggest you appeal your ban. Furthermore, per policy, I am not going to serve as a meatpuppet, in fear of being banned or blocked myself. Nothing against you, but I hope you understand.

As for the content that you wish to propose, the categories that remain were approved by consensus based on population totals. Although I myself recognize Taiwanese Americans as a subcategory of Chinese Americans, the category for representation was not agreed to when the process started, so would have to be reassessed after this current process completes itself. Furthermore, new round of nominations for representees in categories where one has been approved is not yet open, and will not be taken, or at least considered by myself, intil the current process completes itself. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Elockid appears to be trying to own the Asian American talk page and is accusing me of being 23prootie. I feel offended and saddened by that gesture. I do not understand why there is controversy there. I only thought that I was just a passer-by trying to help. Could you tell this Elockid to leave me alone. I believe that he is quite annoying.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So you know, you continue to solidify the fact that you are 23prootie. The fact that you edited the same exact edits as an IP that got blocked yesterday, you are going to the same user to ask for help and the fact that you are editing the same articles as 23prootie is not mere coincidence. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"Don't mistake coincidence with fate", John Locke, Lost. --124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, you should take the present issue to the Admin noticeboard, or better yet the dispute resolution page.
Please note it would be wholly appropriate, if Elockid believes there is sufficient evidence to support it, to open up a sockpuppet investigation. I sincerely hope that that is not the case, and it is only a matter of mistaken identity. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am pleased that you did not let your emotions sway you. Thank you.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already reported it on ANI with evidence and asked one of the blocking admins for their SPI case to investigate with diffs and info. RightCowLeftCoast, just asking for your opinion ,do you think that is just coincidence as the IP says: diff 1 and diff 2. The fact that they went to you first to ask for help like the IP yesterday and they are editing within the same region? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
May I reply? I went to the editor who appears to be in charge of the voting in that topic. I apologize that someone came here first.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You may reply. I too am curious as to why this user 23pootie was blocked, then banned. That being said, if 23pootie was blocked, then there must be a reason why, and regardless the user should respect it, or seek to overturn said block via the appropriate channels. Furthermore, perhaps (and I cannot find the wikilink right now for some reason) you might want to apply for a fresh start, if this in fact 23pootie. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please provide the link to the SPI? I'd be interested in commenting on it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The current thread is in ANI under 23prootie and banned evasion. Here is the link to 23prootie's SPI case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive. These threads might serve useful to why they were blocked indefinitely. thread 1, thread 2. 23prootie was de facto banned per this thread and the fact that no adminsitrator would lessen the time of their block. See their talk page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As you asked, I did some snooping and found this. It seems that the bad blood between Elockid and 23prootie has a long history.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. While you were posting this, I was looking these up myself. It appears that 23prootie, had been pushing a point of view that was not backed by reference or consensus.
You do bring up a good point that IP user 124.104.42.21 does appear to be editing similar articles as 23pootie did, thus meeting the duck test. That being said, if whomever this user is does not engage in disruptive edits, I am willing to assume good faith, and be willing to hear out any suggestions. However, if they do engage in disruptive edits, I can understand where you are coming from, as it meets with block policy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had a sockpuppetry case where it hasn't resulted in a block and I only file one when I have reason to believe that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is involved and all but one sock (that one sock was blocked due to meatpuppetry) has been confirmed as a sock from a CU when I reported them of sockpuppetry. So my track record in finding and knowing socks is quite good. This IP is quite in the ball park of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry from what I currently looking at. Don't get me wrong, I do assume good faith until it seems quite obvious that the user here not contribute constructively or is a sock, I ask for assistance. As I said previously, this seems to fit sockpuppetry.
As for "our" history, I see socks, I report them. Simple as that. 23prootie is no different. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"So much anger", Nightcrawler, X2.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't take my comment in the wrong light. I am not attempting to attack your editing style, or your efforts to see a blocked/banned user meet their obligation by respected said block/ban. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry I'm not. I'm just showing that when I sense sockpuppetry which I am, then it usually is correct. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes, continue to justify your fanaticism. As if we do not see your vendetta against 23prootie.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes and if it's found that that you are 23prootie through the evidence that I presented or if a Checkuser intervenes, then filing an abuse report to your ISPs will be in order. You still haven't provided reasonable evidence to show how the evidence is wrong with exception to it's a mere coincidence which by nature is rather is a very weak defense and very unlikely that anyone will believe. Clear supporting evidence is one thing, vendetta is another. I have already provided sufficient evidence to show that you're a sock of 23prootie or editing on their behalf. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
But if the block/ban, itself, is unreasonable, due to the false assumptions of the blocking party (see discussion below), then all subsequent blocks/bans/sockpuppetry cases are unreasonable as well? I think you don't seem to understand that your history with 23prootie creates a rather negative pretense regarding your intentions, which politicizes them and implies a bias that equates to anger.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The blocks were certainly reasonable and justified. The account 23prootie was already blocked indefinitely before I filled the SPI investigations for continued edit warring (long history of edit warring) and going against consensus to move a page while being logged out (sockpuppetry) for articles that I was uninvolved in. The SPI investigations I filled was to get their IPs blocked to prevent further disruption. Furthermore, using open proxies is against Wikipedia policy of which 23prootie was using, so the blocks are even more justified. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To simplify, I am implying that you should not have been the one to report 23prootie, since your past history with them taints your view (no matter how reasonable or justified) and implies bias.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That basis is completely ridiculous. You can't just ask someone who knows nothing or little about 23prootie or is uninvolved in the situation and ask them to file a sockpuppet investigation regarding recent socks. That's not how it works. I'm curious to know, what past history you're talking about? There's only one topic I can think off before they were blocked and banned that we had a dispute over and the SPI doesn't seem to support any history shared between us. If you don't mind moving this to your talk page, I wouldn't want to disturb RightCowLeftCoast any longer unless he doesn't mind. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To reply, I believe that you should have asked or allowed another user to file these sockpuppetry investigations since your constant accusations towards one particular user implies a vendetta. --124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am rather curious what was that point of view that 23prootie was pushing that was not backed by reference or consensus? As you know, I am unfamiliar wit these cases.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The nature of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting and rather controversial.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The Philippines during that period of time, was part of the United States, in the same way that Puerto Rico is presently part of the United States. There are different points of view, including revisionist historians, who do not support said fact, and thus the possible controversy. Either way, the discussion of the nature of the Commonwealth of the Philippines shouldn't be here on my talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
On a rather independent comment, the Philippines may have received diplomatic acceptance at that time, as a recognized founding member of the United Nations, an organization Puerto Rico never belonged to. I didn't thought it was about that as I do not see that as controversial, my mistake.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
On a technical note, unincorporated insular areas are not parts of the United States as they are not bound to the U.S. constitution.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
At the time of the signing of the charter, Puerto Rico was not a commonwealth, and thus was a U.S. Territory. They did not achieve commonwealth status until 1952.
The Philippines was still a political entity, being part of the United States, until independence was achieved in July 1946, even if internally self-governing. The delineation of incorporated and unincorporated territories did not occur until after the Philippines had gained independence. Therefore, the relationship of the Philippines to the United States, as a ceded territory from Spain, was initially governed by the Treaty of Paris, and was subject to U.S. Law there after, until U.S. Law and the Treaty of Manila (1946) granted independence. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If everyone can please take discussions not involving myself to the appropriate ANI section, or the appropriate article's talk page, I would greatly appreciate it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I must really apologize for hacking your talk page. I hope you except my apology and that it doesn't come off as negative perceptions towards me. I was trying to prevent further disruption and socking which is something I'm heavily involved in. If you're interested in knowing, the IP was blocked for 1 week for block evasion as a duck. Again, sorry for hacking your talk page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for apologies, but there was none-needed. You were doing what you felt was right. It was just that the conversation would have been better off on the ANI where the reviewing admins could see it, rather then coming here. After all, it makes things easier on them.
I only hope that 23pootie could learn from their past mistakes, and hopefully one day return and positively contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that is consistent with the etiquette all editors should be given. I understand that at times, one can be frustrated, especially when one believes themselves to be right. But that's why it's sometimes best just to walk away. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What you say is true. Also actually, 2 threads were being used on ANI, one was created by me and 23prootie. I didn't want to seem rude or even ruder by his standards and ignoring him, but he kept responding here too. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vatican Scouting

Thanks for taking the time to look at the situation on the Scouting article! —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, I am happy to have been of assistance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

Thanks, however, due to academic pressures I still don't use this often. Well, gotta replace the message with something else now. ★Dasani★ 09:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the semi-retired template? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

fort hood

I inadvertnalty emoved material, I have now reinserted it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Making_.27Religion.27_section_more_objective

Hi RCLC. One of the disputants relisted the dispute after your 3O opinion. Just FYI, I've removed the relisting and posted a notice at Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Making_.27Religion.27_section_more_objective saying to follow the "What happens next?" section in the FAQ. Regards, —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Asian Americans

I noticed that after the votes are done 21 representatives would be placed in the infobox with 11 males and 10 females. I doubt that is equal so for equality, I request the representatives for the next highest ethnic groups (Indonesian and Bengali, not Taiwanese, which is a Chinese sub-group) be included so that it remains neutral. I propose they be both the male and female representatives for Bengali and the female representative for Indonesian.--124.104.35.224 (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically there should be an equal numbers of males and females, after the entire process is completed. The reason why Indonesian's and Bengali were left off, were due to population size. Presently, I would not support reassessment of other ethnicities in the infobox until the results of the 2010 census are released. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest using transitional representatives to keep in line with the intention of male/female equality, although I believe that in the end the Indonesian and Bengali representatives would still be chosen. See [2].--124.104.35.224 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Then there would be an imbalance of males over females, contrary to the intention of the voting process. It's one guideline against another, either gender equality or the restriction on the number of ethnicities. I propose a middle-ground by adding relatively large ethnicities to balance out the images. There was no discussion when a particular gender outnumbers the other. I seek to remedy that by providing this solution.--124.104.45.106 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note:
"I propose that the order which they are listed are by order of size of population, that we attempt to equalize the male to female ratio. This proposal is in addition to the others I have already proposed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)". When did 10 = 11? --124.104.45.106 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
When a suitable female for Loation Americans is found, she shall be added to the infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Two articles you nominated for GA status, Jose Calugas and Francis B. Wai have been reviewed and have been placed on hold pending the resolution of those comments. Skinny87 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you don't mind the wait, but I'll get to them by Thursday. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that these 2 articles are out there. I work a lot with Medal of Honor recipients and have done many edits on these 2. I wanted to ask if you needed any help with these? I would be glad to help you work through the issues that were identified so that we can get these to GA. If your interested I also have a couple pending review if you want to take a look at them. List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients is pending Featured List and Smedley Butler is Pending A class. I also intend on submitted the Hispanic, and boxer rebellion lists as well as several more for GA, A and FA in the near future. --Kumioko (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Asian Americans

When are going to close the nominations for Asian Americans? --[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Dickson

You had previously participated in a deletion discussion for this subject, at its first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson. It has been nominated for deletion, again. The discussion is taking place, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The California Star
Thank you for all your help on Chula Vista and California related pages Spongie555 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chula Vista

I dont know if your still on your wikibreak but i could use some help with the Chula Vista page. I think we need a sports section and expand more stuff. Spongie555 (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chula Vista

I dont know if your still on retirement but we should try to get Chula Vista article to FA for its centennial on October 17,2011. Spongie555 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RightCowLeftCoast/Archive_1&oldid=1142484524"