User talk:SW3 5DL

Fun with Wikipedia

This is actually an article on Wikipedia: [1]. And also notice that, with few exceptions, each item has its own article.

Vandal: [[2].

Landon Donovan

[3]

Smile

Hello Malke 2010, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

how to search for pictures

There's a couple of ways you could go about it. The self-help way: [4], reverse image search. I ran it through, and it takes me to this page, which identifies it as Luca Signorelli, L’Immaculée de la promesse et des prophéties, 1521-1523, huile sur bois, 217 cm x 210 cm, Museo Diocesano, Cortone (Italie). And says they got it from us. :) Sure enough, we already have it on Commons as File:Luca signorelli, immacolata concezione, cortona.jpg. If that way had not worked, I would have recommended asking at WP:MCQ or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, where somebody could probably have identified it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• Side note/input: I agree. Please let him respond to me as since that's what I expect. I've never had any contact with this user (History 2007) and it seems even that we agree up to a certain point. At the AFD page for example I agreed with him initially (w/o posting) to delete and later, after the article changed quite a bit, he started today) to agree with me and changed his "vote" to keep. Besides that, there are other instances where w/o his knowledge I agreed with him so let's AGF and let him respond to me like Mrg said.
  I know I shouldn't post here as this is an on-wiki "one on one" conversation so please feel free to remove or collapse this post after reading. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  Add on. I didn't add more details about the e-mail since they are private and nobody's business.TMCk (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and that right there is proof his claim is false. I think he's just desperate to stop this article as it seems he thinks his Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) will be merged into it. And some day it probably will be.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I have no business on this page anyways and don't want to extent this rather small issue to your talkpage, just one last word: Never forget about wp:AGF no matter how hard it might seem to be at times. Best, TMCk (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ja, Ja, XD. Btw, his translation is hilarious.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, he doesn't know why we use the small font. Bestens, Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it came from Google or other online/software translation but somehow I doubt they would be that bad and add on a random word or two. Still, I hope for a positive response from him and put it to rest. About the "small font", I use it a lot and am not the only one. It's very common when adding a less important comment. I guess most editors know that but no editor knows all.TMCk (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
But please let me sort it out with him and let's not go further into it here or at the AFD page. Ok? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO, that would do more harm than good.TMCk (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It'll blow over You showed me how to use the small font and I told you what XD meant.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you did XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD "smile".TMCk (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this legit use of the mentoring page, or can this discussion take place on a user talkpage? I don't know how MRG feels about strict compliance with the notice at page top, so I will leave it to you to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 21 October 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) 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It must be Halloween

==Reverts and article ownership== You've been making a lot of reverts in the past couple of days.[5][6][7][8][9] I see that you have made twice as many edits to Tea Party movement than the next two most prolific contributors combined.[10] These two facts raise the issue of article ownership. Please read the policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I'm only seeing one or two reverts. Do you have more diffs? Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's always possible that I miscalculated - there's a reason I don't patrol 3RRs. My edit [11] Revert [12] My edit [13] Revert [14] My edit [15] Revert [16] My edit [17] Revert [18] My edit [19] Revert [20] Those all seem like reverts.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) To clarify - I'm not making a 3RR complaint. This is a warning that the combination of reverts, general dominance of the article, and, also, dismissive talk page comments give an impression of ownership. There is a formal policy prohibiting ownership, and editors have been sanctioned by the ArbCom for it. I'm requesting that Malke 2010 familiarize herself with the content of WP:OWN and edit with full consideration of it. That's all.   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, thanks, I see what you mean. However, these are not straight reverts but fairly complex, and spread out over several days in many cases. Because Malke2010 is already involved in a mentorship, she needs to be really careful. I agree that the diffs show an ownership problem. If Malke isn't already on 1RR, she probably should be, for her own protection. I don't want to see her blocked again, and this doesn't look good. If I were Malke, I would take these types of articles off my watchlist completely and concentrate on creating and writing articles instead. Viriditas (talk)` I'm a regular editor to Tea Party movement and will continue to be. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) That's fine, but keep in mind, if you continue editing like this, you will probably end up indefinitely blocked. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Please don't pile on. The mentorship is not a stick to be used in Willbeback's content dispute. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Pile on? I came here to defend you. Once I saw the evidence, and looked at it without prejudice, I offered my opinion. If you don't take the problematic articles off your watchlist, you can be quite sure that the community will make the decision for you. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) What exactly do you believe the problem to be? Can you show with diffs?Malke 2010 (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Will Beback believes there is a problem. I responded, asking for evidence. He responded with good evidence showing reverts, dismissive use of the talk page, and ownership issues. The diffs for some of these issues are above. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) You can make any accusation of a long time editor on any page, especially when that editor has called your edits into question. I'd say you should not take things out of context. Also, you might consider what his agenda might be, and to that end you might consider examining his edits over there and note that he's been systemically reverting stable edits and adding in inflammatory edits, etc. As for your comments, you might consider AGF first. It seems rather presumptious of you to decide on your own that I'm guilty of something, and then to suggest the probable punishment. My pattern of editing there does not in any way suggest an ownership problem, nor have I gone past 3RR, etc. In fact, I have been a mediator over there on several disputes. Perhaps you should look further back into the talk page history, as well as the edit history. Just yesterday, I went out of my way to get an admin to take a look at the edits being made on the page. Perhaps that is the real issue here, as the admin found all sorts of problems with Willbeback's edit. As I said, the mentorship is not a button marked "Resolved" when there is a content dispute. If there were issues as Willbeback claims, he could avail himself of the appropriate noticeboard. You might also take a look at the Know Nothing Party talk page, as he attempted to insert the Tea Party movement into that article but was rebuffed by the editors there. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding Will Beback's accusation of dismissive talk page comments, it appears to be supported in this thread. As for your comments above, it is generally not a good idea to address what you think is an agenda or what an editor is doing on another page until the problem under discussion has been solved. Many editors will look at this type of discourse as a distraction. Also, you said you contacted an admin who found problems with Will Beback's edits, but I looked at that discussion, and the admin actually agreed with Will Beback. There appears to be a disconnect here, Malke. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, the admin, Balloonman, didn't agree with many points in Willbeback's edit, as he outlined in his meticulous assessement. You might also note that Balloonman looked over the discussion and took the time to note that it had been civil and appropriate. He took note of one comment I made in exasperation, and I addressed it. Your concerns in this matter seem to be out of proportion to the matter, and especially as you don't edit Tea Party movement. Also, you don't seem to have taken my suggestion to review the archives and the edit history which would show I've been an excellent contributor to that page. So I'm at a loss to understand why you're here right now. This is a content dispute Willbeback is upset about. He can't make a 3RR complaint, because none exists. Believe, there are 59 people following me around. Moonriddengirl looks at every single edit, and if she's not been the one to come here, nor LessHeard VanU, then that seems to suggest there's not a problem. That could be the disconnect you're talking about. Now, please I think it's best to end this discussion, as I don't know what's upset you, or why you seem to have an unusual interest in me, but it seems to me that further engagement here won't solve whatever it is. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I would comment that Viriditas is an experienced and well regarded editor, and it is the Wikipedia editing model that third parties may involve themselves in matters of their choosing in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. You have responded to V's view of the matter, and you may agree to differ or to continue the discussion, and that is fine. There is no basis by which any editor can determine that another editor may not involve themselves in any issue within WP outside of formal restrictions or other sanctions. Per AGF, Viriditas is trying to help. It is best to respond in a likewise manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at this. I am aware of the Wikipedia editing model. I've not suggested V not involve himself, only that I believe, and looking over it again, I'm certain, that it's becoming out of proportion.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't a clue what you are talking about, Malke, but I've taken this page off of my watchlist for good. Bye. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Malke 2010, did you read that policy like I asked you to? I see that elsewhere you say you've done nothing wrong and don't intend to even respond to this request.[21] Instead of responding to me you've made more reverts.[22][23] I think that's unhelpful behavior and reminiscent of the behaviors that led to previous enforcement actions. Nobody wants to see a repeat of those. Again I request that you please read and closely follow WP:OWN.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)}}