User talk:Pairadox

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

In recognition of your useful and helpful deletions, and in compensation for the unwarranted warning templates they earned you, I award you this brand-new one-of-a-kind Compensatory Barnstar. Happy editing! Eleland 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Pairadox! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on User:SQL/Reflist, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work will go unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition for your major edit of Patton Boggs LLP removing the self-promotional style of the article and for wikifying the article, as well as for having responded so kindly and constructively to my initital misplaced criticism Mschiffler (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Pairdox, I come to here to say something. I thought that you support the wrong version and are not neutral to meditate the article. But after reading some discussion at the talk page, you have tried to solve the conflict between the two party. I didn't really mean to label you as a vandal, but to you, my summary made the impression as such, so I sincerely apologize to you for my misunderstanding. I admit that I confused with rv and rvv. I thought rvv means "revert the revert" (two step prior version). Thank you for letting me know not to make a mistake. Bye--Appletrees (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That really means a lot. :) Pairadox (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

• You may be interested in a current MfD discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
• Recently, the page User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
• Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
• If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing that policy to my attention. You probably helped me avoid a serious problem. I am sometimes overzealous, and I frequently get myself into hot water, as you will see if you look at my talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:[1] No prob, it's a common misconception about user talk pages and blanking. Pairadox (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Cole

The article did not say that he had an affair it says that tabloids reported that he had an affair; this can be verified by the tabloids reports. There has been quite a lot of media coverage of the tabloid reports themselves and the events surrouding them by sources usually considered reliable [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article wasn't claiming that the accusations were true, it was just documenting that accusations had been made and as shown above, those accusations have been documented by reliable sources. Whether to include the information in the article itself is an editorial decision but I think the sourcing is sufficient. I do think there is a difference between saying that "X had an affair" and "X was reported to have an affair" as I think in this instance the latter can be reliably sourced and verified (whilst the former cannot). Having said that I'm not going to re-add any information as I now think it would probably be unnecessary recentism (links to essay). Guest9999 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be used to repeat rumors, which is essentially what that sentence did.[6] If it can be reworded to focus on the effects of the initial reports, such as the banning of a reporter from a news conference, that would be fine. (Although, to be honest, at least one of the sources you provide above seems to be naught but a rumour in itself.) Pairadox (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm sorry I acted hastily in reinstating the material. Guest9999 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Pairadox (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

I've gotten four barnstars, but not that one. And I have so wanted one of those! Thank you very much. Doczilla (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks pretty good over by the fireplace. Seriously: Thanks again! Doczilla (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies regarding Nancy Pelosi article

I will stand down. Thanks for the defense. Jw120550 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A note about Rev Melissa Scott's adult video career

I recently had a small paragraph removed from the Pastor Gene Scott page that made mention of his widow, the Rev. Melissa Scott who now runs his ministies. It told about her adult video history back before she met Reverend Scott. It was removed as being "non-constructive". I believe it is very constructive to mention her stint as an adult video actress for Vivid Video under the name Barbie Bridges, as it informs people of her past so they can better decide what type of person she is, so they will have all the facts when they're trying to choose whether to join her ministry. There were 4 Google sources that verified this info as true. I also have the nude pictures of her as proof, though I won't post them here. To not add it seems a little like censorship, and I thought that Wiki was a means of gathering all the facts? Thank you. Iambigwayne (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

The problem wasn't the info, it was the sources. Groups.google doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Pairadox (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Leo Yankevich

Hi, Pairadox--

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Czarnykon (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the citation tag; as the links at the bottom of the page do constitute the use of the modifier "considerable."

Czarnykon (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, they don't. Considerable is a comparative term; a list of links to his work shows nothing of how he compares to others. Pairadox (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. I have rewritten the sentence.

Czarnykon (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite

Not quite. I'm not wondering so much from the perspective of someone tapping an admin. Rather, I'm wondering what the admin ought to do if the admin is the one spotting the sock. "Discretion of the admin" seems vague to me. Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately my question has more to do with the admin's freedom in using checkuser rather than freedom in blocking.Doczilla (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all admins have checkuser access? Doczilla (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got evidence listed at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history, and it's still not nearly complete. Good lord, that person has used a lot of socks. I just pointed the latest incarnation out to ThuranX. Doczilla (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And with CC, the problem gets compounded by the fact that records don't go back far enough to connect current users to the original CC (who wasn't the original anyway) via checkuser. Checkuser has to be used instead on the most recent confirmed sock, and when some admins get the checkuser request, they just say the records don't go back far enough and fail to check the most recently confirmed puppet, thereby dragging out the whole process. Doczilla (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:[7]. (With Days of our Lives, reality shows, celebrity pages, dates, and related categories . . . it's the Creep. Doczilla talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, I need to get some sleep when I insert an edit in the middle of my name. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming amount of information on that evidence page can be daunting. Sometimes that's what keeps me from reporting the sock. Also, I've been concerned that if the same user (in this case, myself) always reports the puppeteer, it could come across as some kind of personal vendetta. Therefore, I try to give other people the opportunity to report CC. (And now my broken arm is hurting because I've been typing this too rapidly, so I am going to have to call it a night.) Doczilla (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I saw the big orange banner. I just didn't want some of what I had to say to appear in my own talk page's history, for several practical reasons. Doczilla (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock charges are grave.

It's always easy to accuse someone of being a sock when you don't like the history of the edits he or she has done. Kindly desist from making sock charges, as it is unfair. Czarnykon (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? I think you're confusing discussion threads here. Pairadox (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Okay, here's why I ask: ThuranX, Wryspy, and I are constantly spotting socks of User:Creepy Crawler. We have never turned out to be wrong, but it's such as hassle every single time and that user does a lot of additional damage before finally getting blocked. I don't know what Czarnykon thinks I might be talking about. Doczilla (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: subtle charges of sockpuppetry. Bad manners. What I am concerned about is improving articles. I see your point and have removed any ambiguous pov statements from the article on Leo Yankevich. As to your suggestion that I claim to be an admin: nope I don't. I just prefer to stick to the rules, which even admins break. Czarnykon (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Czarnykon, Doc and I are discussing something totally unrelated to you. Pairadox (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse user names. Sorry. Czarnykon (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box taken from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

Argh.

Gah, I suspected that this guy had at least some experience, knowing what BLPs were and all that. I don't see anything in the block log, am I looking in the wrong place? He seems bent on my protection rationale - not the best, but hey - even though it would've been protected for a BLP dispute anyways. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the right IP address? I don't see a block in the log. If you're right, then it's a sock getting around a block to harasss an admin... Dreadstar † 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frak; I don't see it now; maybe I looked at the wrong tab? Sorry, folks, I may have cried wolf on this one. Pairadox (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I've got a coupla messes on my hands, if you find it that would be great, if not, it's no big deal. He said it'd be his last post on my talk, so it may have just sorted itself out, without unnecessary drama. Thank God. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pandora Jewelry

Rather than just slapping it with a tag, can you please explain why you think Pandora Jewelry reads like advertising? I thought I had done a good job of keeping things neutral, and everything in the article is taken from verifiable sources. Feel free to comment on the talk page or here or whereever.... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just removing a tag, perhaps you could wait for a reply or address the issues raised by that tag? Since you created the article, it's likely you won't see what another editor will.

It's a very well crafted article in many respects, but it still reads like advertising. There's the detailed products list, right down to a price range. There's the hype in the lead about their growth without a section in the body of the article that corresponds to it, nor any perspective to that growth. The tone of the entire article is one of unmitigated praise, right down to the PR-like mention of charity works. Pairadox (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well why don't you have a go at reworking it then? And I repeat, if you're going to slap something with an "ad" tag, why not be so kind as to explain on the talk page? I don't want to sound overly defensive but I think you're being slightly silly on this one. A few more points:
  • So you're writing an article about a range of jewelry, but wouldn't include what the actual products were?
  • The point of including the pricing is to convey the idea that there is an extremely variable price point (i.e. people can choose how inexpensive or expensive they wish to go)
  • The growth comment was something I picked out of an article which did not give any more context so how could I add anything. You'll see that it is referenced.
  • A completely NPOV sentence about things they sponsor is considered "PR hype" (to paraphrase you?) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• One other comment... I didn't take your tag lightly. You will see that I made numerous revisions to the article after removing it. I wouldn't mind getting a third party opinion on this, actually, because although the article is new I just don't see what you're seeing regarding the tone :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:PageantUpdater

PDC Book

I'm far enough along, although not finished, with the intial update to the The Purpose Driven Church. I am taking your advice and trying to dig up some positive, representative book reviews. (Although, there is several hundred on Amazon.com. How would one reference them?) Could you take a look at my Workshop page and tell me if I'm missing anything? I'd like to post it as is and then update it as I get more information. Thanks for the help. CarverM (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel up to right now, but I will look it over this weekend. Pairadox (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries as sources

Just one comment on the obituaries as sources: most obituaries are written by family or friends (surely wouldn't be independent sources), but I believe that news obituaries are sufficient. Of course, that's different from the question of MULTIPLE sources, since some of the articles that you listed have no sources except a single obituary. Davidson is an obvious exception, since she had six sources listed when I looked at the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on "Intellectual controversy" section of Oxford Round Table

I have made a request for comment [8] on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, and while I essentially agree with your suggestions, I wanted to let the RfC draw in a few other people before commenting on it myself. At this point I think a broader range of opinions would serve to move this forward better than (yet another) comment from me. Pairadox (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

when i say i will slit his neck and drown him, then give me a warning, dont give me one for saying not to remove merge tags otherwise give one to him--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a warning for calling him a hypocrite. Any further personal attacks against anyone will be met with additional warnings. If they continue, a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will follow. Pairadox (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

-_- dude hypocrite is not an attack, so get off my back--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand that "hypocrite" is a comment on the contributor, not the contribution, and is an attack on their integrity. Pairadox (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the line, "Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation." And profanity is hardly making your case. Pairadox (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FFS look at hypocrite, read it? good, now get a life and stop bugging me

add another personal attack tag on my page and you will need to put a personal attack tag on my page, I have not posted and you keep fucking with me, just lay off me--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DONT EDIT MY FUCKING POSTS--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

This is my BIG ORANGE BANNER

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}