User talk:Accounting4Taste: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:16, 3 January 2008

If you're here to discuss a page, it would be appreciated if you would be specific about the name of the page, if possible providing a link to it. Since I, like you, am working to improve Wikipedia, please remember to assume good faith, and also please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Template:Archive box collapsible

New accounts which are redlinks

I've noticed that surprisingly often accounts of new or new-ish Users display as redlinks -- presumably meaning that the accounts have been created fairly recently but then de-activated.
Is this the correct explanation for why they display as redlinks and do you have any idea why this occurs so frequently?
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your reply. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amer10

I thought I'd wait to see if he responds. I have been reverting some of his edits that were unsourced, and I figure I'll just look through any other edits he does to see if they sound reasonable. But I wouldn't object to his being blocked indefinitely. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. He knows all about sourcing. At least his sources are easily refuted on articles he creates from scratch, but he doesn't believe in sourcing minor edits or small edits to existing articles, which is what makes those edits difficult to prove or disprove. Corvus cornix_talk 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though I'm not sure I'll revert everything, just those things that look suspicious. Corvus cornix_talk 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin

Hello here, but I tried going on Club penguin but I found out that it requires my e-mail address and I do not want to give that away!

--pumagirl7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Quek

I'm currently writing an article about Justin Quek and at the start I had accidentally pressed the 'Save Page' button. Sorry!

Mervyn Wang (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Tagging

I wouldn't have noticed that you were an administrator had you not beat me to protecting BMLIAHS from recreation :-). I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but since you are an admin you no longer have to tag things for speedy deletion. The community trusts your judgment to thoughtfully apply the criteria for speedy deletion all on your own (and you seem to be doing a fine job), so just nuke the suckers! Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wtf

the page on chris edgington was not a personal attack! He killed 3 entire famalies in the suburbs of chicago in 2001-2003. Mason, Gonzalez, and Shriver. He was never caught but everyone knows exactly where he is, and the case was closed in 05 due to lack of evidence and he was a minor. --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)!!![reply]

In that case, you should be able to provide citations to newspaper articles, etc., that verify what you've asserted. Otherwise, Wikipedia could be in serious trouble for publishing libel. If you're planning on recreating this article, you need to put those references in from the very beginning or else the article will be deleted by me or another administrator, for the same reason. If you have any questions about this, you can refer to the policy at WP:Verifiable or leave a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 69.246.79.189

No problem! Happy New Year. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Queen

Thank you for your note; I'm afraid I'm going to be very busy for the next month or so, and as a result I can't offer to take on any new activities. Good luck with the article, however! – Scartol • Tok 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although she's usually even busier than I, you might ask Awadewit. There are some other folks in my Wikilove box on my userpage who might be of use. JayHenry is pretty good about providing such services. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Taste... I'm not nearly as good as Scartol and Awadewit and consequently I'm not quite as busy ;) I'll definitely take a look at the article some time this week and give a few thoughts. The biggest thing is always having good sources. Once you've found good sources -- a few books or whatever -- then the rest is really just details. Great New Years Resolution, by the way! Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks (gee, MISTER Taste, usually it's "you !*$@#!!$" since I do a lot of new page patrol). In the world of academic criticism of detective fiction, references are not thick on the ground, but I've done what I can with what I have in my own library. Your comments will be very welcome and I appreciate your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this will be wayyy more fun than new page patrol! Do you have the two Nevins books mentioned in the article? --JayHenry (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, no; nor do I have a copy of the dedicated issue of CLUES (the only detective fiction academic journal) that discusses Queen. But if I have to, I'll track them down and buy them. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Detective fiction short stories

Hi thanks for your greeting - this is still an evolving area and categories are a difficult area to get right is requires precision of categorizing and the co-op community like with is not too hot at such things. Still, one of the things the task force should aim to tackle is the sort of these things. I have made some changes to the collection you mention including one still to be added category. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amer10 again

I have a strong hunch that Amer10 (talk · contribs) has resurfaced as Robertcowbells (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good catch, and quickly too. You're more involved in sockpuppet cases than I am -- what happens next? (I'd like to know, just in case I ever rub two brain cells together and manage to identify a sockpuppet.) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He kept adding hoax info to articles, so after the fourth warning I listed him at WP:AIV and he got indef. blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :: Oh this will be ''wayyy'' more fun than new page patrol!  Do you have the two Nevins books mentioned in the article? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 :::Regrettably, no; nor do I have a copy of the dedicated issue of ''CLUES'' (the only detective fiction academic journal) that discusses Queen.  But if I have to, I'll track them down and buy them.  [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-:::: If the book isn't available from a library I'd ask yourself the question: is this a book I'd enjoy reading anyways?  Looks like you can get a copy for under $30 on Amazon.[http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0879720662/ref=dp_olp_2/105-4236566-2677226]  It's pretty highly-touted.  [[Janet Maslin]] likes it.[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/books/06quee.html]  If you think you would enjoy the book regardless of Wikipedia, I say go for it.  If you wouldn't enjoy it and you have to choose between buying the book and buying dinner... it's not a make-or-break sort of thing.  Looks like the library I use has online access to Clue after 2004.  So I can track down the Clue article mentioned in references (Wheat 2005).  Probably getting ahead of myself a bit though as I haven't read the article closely yet. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 ==Categories: Detective fiction short stories==
 Hi thanks for your greeting - this is still an evolving area and categories are a difficult area to get right is requires precision of categorizing and the co-op community like with is not too hot at such things. Still, one of the things the task force should aim to tackle is the sort of these things. I have made some changes to the collection you mention including one still to be added category. :: [[User:Kevinalewis|<span style="color: #33C;">Kevinalewis</span>]] : [[User talk:Kevinalewis|<sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page)</sup>]]/[[User:Kevinalewis/Desk|<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)</sub>]] 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
+==[[User:Amer10]] again==
+I have a strong hunch that {{user|Amer10}} has resurfaced as {{user|Robertcowbells}}.  <font face="Comic Sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Dark Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
+:Wow, good catch, and quickly too.  You're more involved in sockpuppet cases than I am -- what happens next?  (I'd like to know, just in case I ever rub two brain cells together and manage to identify a sockpuppet.)  [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
+::He kept adding hoax info to articles, so after the fourth warning I listed him at [[WP:AIV]] and he got indef. blocked.  <font face="Comic Sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Dark Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)