User talk:Kintetsubuffalo

Welcome to my talk page. House Rules I may or may not respond to a post you make here on this page. If I revert or remove your post from my page, it could be that I do not find the discussion germane to me, I will try to respond, but if I don't, you will survive, I'm sure. Alternately it could be that I find something in the posting to be preachy or pedantic, in which case I will simply revert or remove your post. I am getting ready to go live in Japan, and if I hit one button rather than another, on my own talk page, I am a 2 1/2 year editor, not some vandal, and really don't need to be roasted. In the words of Jimbo Wales, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do. This is not your talk page, this is my talk page, and I do not allow edit wars on here. If you are a legal positivist, if the "rules" of Wikipedia in your mind overrule respect for the privacy and pages of others, you have your own talkpage which is your own playground to do exactly what you wish. This is not it, and you are not welcome to it. Friends and colleagues are most welcome, and none of the above is meant for you.

Welcome

Welcome to Japan! I am glad that you made it! Are you in Tokushima now, or still in the process of relocating? --MChew (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)\

WOSM

Sorry, Chris, I am going to disagree with you. If there is any doubt, it becomes a disambiguation page. The Scouting WOSM page is just one more click way. I have reverted your last edit and am inclined to protect that disambiguation page, but perhaps I should not. Cheers, Brian. --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Request of Comment

Hi, I would suggest that a request for comment might be useful way of solving the issue as a start. There are other options too, including mediation, but an article request for comment will get uninvolved experienced editors involved. --Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most constructive thing I've heard all day. I appreciate it. I've been trying to cut through all the legalese crap on the other options, without success. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts

The above named proposed project has now been created at that page. Please feel free to develop the page beyond its current rough format. Should you have any questions regarding how to set up the project any further, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Tajikistan

I saw you put up a banner for it on the 2008 energy crisis page (which makes sense), but I'm wondering, is this project still going? It has 2 members, and besides your scouting post, there's no discussion there. I'm a bit hesitant to say anything after the workgroup debacle last month, but you think it's still a viable project? Otebig (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here about merging. I think the intense reactions to the whole workgroup/project issue were partly due to quick actions that caught people off guard, so I'm trying to be very careful to not step on any toes with this idea. Thank you for your input and support! Otebig (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Could you drop me an email I'd like to discuss a few things also other than the tags. Hobartimus (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Noble House

I'm not sure the plot is so closely based on history as Tai-Pan and Whirlwind; but if you look at this capsule history of Jardines in the 1960s, [1], going public and then the big supermarket deal are clearly paralleled in the book.

I believe some of the big set-pieces -- the fire on the boat, and the landslip, are also closely modelled on real happenings. As you imply, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Clavell had based a *lot* on real events and real gossip of the time. But that's about all I know about Hong Kong in the '60s!

Cheers, Jheald (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Meztitla Scout Camp School fdl.jpg

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PhiladelphiaScout.jpg

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Celts

Thanks for inviting me! I've been wanting to start something alone those lines myself, and I was pleased to see it already existed. :-) Have we invited Kathryn NicDhàna, NantonosAedui, Cuchullain, etc? There's quite a number of top-notch contributors who I expect would be pleased to join in. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

good day, answered your question about gorgon in iranian page

just answered your query about the word gorgon in the wikiproject iran, if you have any other questions dont hesitate to ask. --ParthianPrince (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Thanks for your clarification on my talk page. I didn't mean to be rude earlier, and I was wrong to assume your edits were vandalism; however, it's difficult to distinguish this unless you cite sources, since verifiability is one of the core guidelines of Wikipedia and blanking of pages is generally frowned on. Regards, Alexius08 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WOSM-Eurasian Region

You restored back to genitive case where it's supposed to be nominative. Remeber, Russian has mch more word forms, so if in English names in phrases like 'of Eurasian Bureau' look nominative, in Russian they're changed, and have to be changed back before putting in the article. If you'd like a reference, here it is[2]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your help saving the French Olympic boxer René Dubois! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning policy

I'm not going to revert your restoration of the comments since you seem to believe strongly in it, but I am curious where you got the idea that banned users are welcome to edit talk pages. The Wikipedia:Banning policy states they cannot edit pages, and does not mention any exception for talk pages, or am I missing something? I apologize to edit the page this way a second time, I meant no disrespect to you or anyone, I thought it was just a misunderstanding on your point. Since you seem certain, I left it as is because it is likely a misunderstanding on my part instead. Sorry and thank you for the clarification.