User talk:PAVA11

This is the user talk page for Grsz11, where you can send messages and comments. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will reply to messages left here on here unless you request I reply on your talk page.
Also note, I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than 21 days will be sent to the archives.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAVA11.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks

Archives: 2008: Jan-Feb, March, April

March 2008

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Johnson (ice hockey)

Wow, I don't think I've ever received a "thank you" for such a minor edit before. :) Stuff like that is what I'm here for -- I'm not about to write a featured article any time soon, but I like to think I'm pretty good at catching the minor mistakes of others. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply re Barack Obama POV dispute

Hi there. Thanks for requesting my help on the Barack Obama dispute. Unfortunately, I'm really not very well versed in political articles and am probably not the best person to ask to look at this issue. I am very busy at the moment and do not have much time to devote to the necessary research to ensure that any action I take in the dispute is appropriate and keeping to policy. I would suggest requesting help at WP:RFC or WP:3O - this will hopefully attract a broader audience to the issue, and more people with a more varied set of opinions will be able to help you all arrive at a consensus.

Thanks, and good luck. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD of James Avery (captain)

I see you have nominated this article for AFD because of lack of sources or assertion of notability. Did you perform a google test or other test to see if this article had merit? Please be careful with newer editors that you do not Bite them, which may discourage them from contributing in the future. I have posted several references that appear to assert notability. If there is a problem with these or you still have comments, please add them to the discourse at the AFD nominiation. Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKSPAM

I replaced the links. They are links to personal sites, (not trying to sell anything). In this situation, removing them is going to be FAR more disruptive than just leaving them there. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lookinhere

If it's a repeated pattern (i.e., it's a long term abuse issue), take it to the incidents board of the administrators' noticeboard. The AIV noticeboard, however, is primarily there to deal with immediate problems with actual vandalism— not issues of civility. --slakr^\ talk / 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright

Yes, that is much better.thank you. --Die4Dixie 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for taking it. We all know the only controversy is how people took it. Grsz 11 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with factual properly cited , non original research to be included. MAny weasel words are being inserted and the article is a joke as it stands.Most of my attempts have been in good faith on this article, but the lying about syphilis addition was over the top. I plead frustration with the tireless white washing going on on that page. Don't worry, I give and get it from both sides as you would see from my old comments on the talk page of Sean Hannity. I do think that it should be highlighted that his statements about the syphilitic infections are false and i invite you to look at the discussion page about the real estate issue to weigh in.--Die4Dixie 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

jones' edits appear to be disruptive. I have asked for a cite that these were "Imprecations' and not his original research. I want a hard source cited that this is what it was. Am I so wrong? I thought you agreed, since you took it out.--Die4Dixie 23:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Thank God JP showed up to fix that. I'll try not to drink and edit on Friday nights any more. Looks like we might could work this out. I think I might ideological agree with some of Carlos' thoughts, but I think he would, as we all would, be better served try to do this on the talk page. I see you are a good faith editor, although we won't likely agree politically, and I see no reason we can't work together in good faith on this article. What say you?--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure it's his perceived beliefs. I think that the controversy are his beliefs.Maybe we ought to cite perceived. I'm not sure what would be disputed that he actually believes what he says. What might be disputed is the implications that such a large number of a significant minority in the US don't find this shocking and what it means long term for race relations.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Penguins template

Oh, I thought they were just 'interims' (filling in for injured Roberts); sorry. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is a chance, the Penguins might just continue with Roberts & Gonchar as alternate captains (upon Roberts return). GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is: When Roberts returns? the lineup will be C- Crosby, A- Gonchar, A- Roberts. But we won't know until then. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Haha

Beats me, people make the most strangest of additions to articles sometimes Jammy (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an idiotic notion not even worth addressing seriously

The idea that everything cited must be accessible online is, in fact, an utterly idiotic notion. That would mean books and journal articles are barred from Wikipedia. If that is so, then Wikipedia's commitment to amateurism is more endemic than even I had thought. CyberAnth (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for addressing a policy I saw the other day. It's incredibly hypocritical of you go link to assume good faith and then make an attack like that. Grsz 11 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's the idea, not you.  ;-) CyberAnth (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

what an unpleasant user he is.BTW, do you think that everyone must find something to be controversial to acknowledge that a controversy exists. I'm trying to work this through, and I'm not the brightest guy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

I did explain my editing on the Jeremiah Wright page. Please don't lie.-Schlier22 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Explaining doesn't make it okay to delete a large portion of relevant, sourced material no matter how much you disagree with it. Grsz 11 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material once, and then, realizing that this was not the best approach, added negative responses to the positive ones already listed. I hope you don't object to this.-Schlier22 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't, as long as they're very reliable sources. Policy requires that criticism of living persons be from incredibly reliable sources, like the Times, the Associated Press, etc. Grsz 11 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You ight want to visit the talk page where a consensus needs to be built.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring question

Hey , how did you make the edit war warning go away.. I saw it in your history, and I'm intrigued.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some information to Jeremiah Wright's wikipedia page that you deleted. The edits I added pointed out that Rev Wright was quoting somebody as saying chickens coming home to roost not saying that himself. THERE is a huge difference. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

Anderson Cooper the CNN journalist followed up this story with his own investigation and found that when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril. Also nowhere in this sermon did he say "God Damn America".

Your last edit to Animateobjects

It's a cut and paste job, so I've changed your tag to a {{copyvio}} instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama, FAR, Kossack, et al

Well what do you expect? I cannot imagine he is all that eager to own up to his own stunning ignorance. I'm finding it extremely difficult to remain calm when editing any of these articles or commenting. I am constantly amazed at how stupid people can be. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Frustration

I completely understand your frustration. I hardly edited Wikipedia at all between last November and early March. It's a highly imperfect system, and requires almost superhuman patience. I think that this little spat with thegoodlocust was exacerbated by your assumption that he was a troll or sockpuppet — although I understand why you'd think that, it's always good to give people the benefit of the doubt and/or enough rope to hang themselves. Rest up and feel better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pirates

Most of the good articles I could find listed them by the best ERA to worst, which looked good. Though, once we get deeper into the season there should probably be a minimum appearences set for the list, so it is fair. I agree limiting it to the top five would be good, although at the end of the season a full list should be added, we've got plenty of time until that comes up though. Leave any more questions on my talk page, this is my first baseball season as a Wikipedia member, I look forward to doing what I can; and if that first game was any indicator it's gonna be a hell of a season. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote that. I figured that we should have some sort of worded summary of the season. I don't plan to include every game by any means; only major highlights (Opening day, home opener, how they were able to overcome the past and win the World Series (yeah, right), any big win/loss streaks) stuff like that. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we're gonna rank the pitchers by ERA, should we rank batters by their batting average? And are the batters limited to the top 5 also? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll definately be watching the Pens tonight, it's kinda conveinent that the Bucs aren't on TV. I'll probably get on and update their stuff anyway, if you haven't beaten me to it. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the baseball. Most of my classes don't start until later in the day, so I'm usually on for a little bit at night. I've learned from the Steelers Project that the more stuff that you can do while it's happening, the easier it is. I admire those guys who go look through all the old newspapers to find out game results from 50 years ago. I've considered trying to start up a Pirates Project, but I don't know if it's really worth all the effort. Just like the Steelers, the Pirates seem to have a good amount of articles, but most need work. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I go to college in Butler, at BC3. I assume you're from around Pittsburgh too? Blackngold29 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football 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) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to remove personal attacks...

...why would you leave in place a personal-attack section heading, now functioning as an anonymously posted billboard? With your intervention (which, might I add, removed a lot of ontopic discussion, which just happened to be in that section), you have made the personal attack on me conspicuous and hard to attribute. --Mareklug ^talk 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on it now, i'll be back in about an hour and a half. You may have had some relevant conversation, but you have to admit that most of it (and there was a lot of it) was quite unsubstantial. I'm also going to fix my post at the noticeboard. Thanks, Grsz 11 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but having been on the receiving end of your follow-up "work", I feel compelled to include the following excerpt on your talk page, as you clearly need a little more practice and thinking about the consequences of your interventions, before policing on Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Begin quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Troll

< User:Grsz11 removed due to repeated personal attacks, etc. between User:Tocino and User:Mareklug. This talk page isn't for your discussion of who may or may not be a troll. If you insist on talking about it, do so on a User talk: > Grsz 11 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks, but participated here, forced to define what I meant when I declared the phrase "declare formal intent to recognize" to be an example of bullshit. I had to defend this, and my reputation, being unfairly characterized as having been blocked here before, and to illustrate what bullshit can and does mean, and to properly source this. This section, titled "Mareklug is a troll", was, however, started as a personal attack on me. I'd appreciate you learning first how to mediate and correctly remove personal attacks, if they are to be removed at all. You have botched this operation here, among other things, removing without justification substantial amount of meritorious ontopic discussion, as well as orphaning as anonymous the original section heading, which was a personal attack, so that it became impossible to see who made this personal attack. Now, many hours later, you come back and unfairly and ineptly characterize your earlier edit. None of this was terribly adroit of you, or fair, including your follow-up call on the Administration Noticboard for admins to "dish out punishment". I don't think I could vote for your Request for Administratorship, given these crude edits. Clearly you need to hone your skills, because this intervention of yours brings more harm than good and is more incendiary than the offending text itself. And personal attacks are not between users, but made by one user on another. However, meddling and mishandling them, while removing relevant discussion, definitely constitutes an in-betweenness of the most undersirable kind, not to mention, suppression of speech. Undesirable speech should be confronted with more speech. --Mareklug ^talk 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-- End quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

---

I saw the post; it's clear that your attitude has never changed. Personally, I could care less what you think of me. Both of you have seemed to turn that page into your personal battle grounds. It states at the very top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article." What's so hard to understand about that? Bitch at each other on your own talk pages as much as you want, but don't waste everybody else's space. I acknowledge that Tocino initiated the whole thing, but your continuous responses were inappropriate as well. This was unnecessary, and you know exactly what you were trying to do when you did it. Does anybody really listen to Tocino? I'm fairly certain you're integrity on the page would stay intact, no matter how many times he called you a troll. You just need to stay cool. Grsz11 05:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments after September 11

The edit was not intended to be biased. It is, in my estimation, cleaner and easier to follow exactly what was said by whom.

The edit I offered improves on the existing text in a few ways:
1. The Media Matters reference was eliminated as it is irrelevant in that does not provide the source comments. Instead it draws comparisons between the news coverage of Wright and Hagee.
2. It is clear, and verifiable, that Wright attributes his remarks to Peck. To assert that Wright "expands on" Peck, you would have to show the "base" of Peck's actual remarks from which Wright expanded. Wright does not say he "expanded on" Peck comments. My edit shows exactly what Wright said in relation to Peck.
3. Peck is identified for his service in Iraq under President Carter. Elsewhere, Peck's service under Reagan is noted, and thus the entry is incomplete to cite only Reagan and not Carter. 4. I show the direct Wright quotes, in the order that they are given by Wright in his sermon. The existing entry scrambles the order.
5. I note at the end that no evidence has been offered to show that Peck made the remarks. That is verifiable, not original research. If anyone has independent evidence that Peck said the remarks, let them add the evidence.

Regards Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Roland S Martin

You wrote "(rmv. wow is this POV and original research. nobody said the sermon took place the Sunday directly after 9/11. that alone blows your argument)"

Roland Martin said the sermon occurred on September 16. His own network, CNN, said with him on the air they couldn't find evidence of this.

Martin also wrote that Wright was quoting Peck. You seem to agree that is not correct, since you wrote "It's pretty clear and easy to determine that Peck did not make those exact comments ..."

For the Jeremiah Wright entry, I am not disputing the "shortly thereafter" language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngwarrenbuffett (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean CNN said they couldn't find evidence that it was the 16th? Grsz 11 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the link, which I have excerpted.
On March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin. [1]

KING: We went back and we looked for any appearances by Ambassador Peck during this time once you pointed this out to the staff, and can't find any.

MARTIN: Right. And I actually called the church to find out, first of all -- first of all, Reverend Wright is out of the country -- to find out, was that the actual date of the sermon? Was that actually right? Or did he make a mistake in terms of where he saw the ambassador, who actually was a Republican ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan [sic -- Peck was in Iraq under President Carter]?

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peck's comments

You wrote:

It's clear that Peck put forward the idea that US actions brought forth retaliation by Al-Q.Italic text Here is various parts of Peck's various appearances on Fox. From this, I believe, Wright certainly took his liberties, but his main point (Chickens roosting) gave from Peck's statements that the US has certainly done things worth of revenge, etc. Grsz 11 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The transcript you link is a discussion of whether the US should attack Iraq, which Peck opposed. There is no discussion of why Al-Q attacked the US. The reference to 11 years of emabargo appears in this sequence, and it's Peck's answer to why Iraqis are miserable, ie, not simply Hussein but also the embargo. Peck is not offering the embargo of Iraq as the chickens coming home to roost in the form on the 9/11 attack.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peck says this: "He (bin Laden) doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things he sees us as having been doing." Grsz 11 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As shown in the transcript, Peck does not link the 9/11 attacks to US policy. He does discuss a commonality of interests between Al-Q and Hussein. Also, the transcript shows that Peck did not mention Malcolm X, roosting chickens, Nagasaki, HIrohima or various Native American tribes. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to say Wright "attributed his remarks in part to the remarks of Peck" rather than say he "expanded on" Peck's remarks. "Expanded on" is really an editorial judgment which is not supported by any available evidence.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockage

That's funny. I actually do buy socks in Wal-Mart because I like them to be cheap and plentiful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan

Would you be against including the section if I retitle it? In any case, it isn't misplaced at all if it gets its own section, since it obviously directly pertains to the Rev. Wright and the controversy surrounding him.-Schlier22 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be okay to mention breifly regarding the award. It can't say Farrakhan is a controversial figure as that's a judgement. Just say that he gave an award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and mention the quotes. Grsz11 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Plague of Locust

I wish I had a giant can of Raid or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Falcons

Great idea about the Falcon article. A year ago or so, there was a fight between the original faclon and an intruder. It was caught on film which was rare and provided a lot of information on falcon behavior. Western PA Conservancy The Cathedral falcons are actually quite important from a biological science and conservation point of view. There are plenty of references to them in the media to justify its notability. Here are some links National Aviary Cathedral Falcon webcam, National Aviary press release, Pittsburgh Falcon defeats Cleveland falcon in Post-Gazette, Trib-Review article, Trib-Democrat article, Pitt Chronicle article, Pitt Magazine article.

I think the jump off point is probably the Cathedral of Learning article, where it could have a subheading which then does a main wikilink to your new article. Great idea. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns

Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; it would really be appreciated.

I just find it appalling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. I agree with you that the GoodLocust has acted poorly, but I hope that his/her actions don't prevent you from working with myself and other editors on the real issues at hand. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving it a quick look now and doing some research. I'll give it more when I get back to my computer Saturday night and can actually see the whole screen. Thanks for the note. Grsz11 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response; please take you time. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a response under Political Advocacy. Feel free to respond there. Grsz11 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I introduced my concerns in a NPOV manner, and they were largely tossed right out. I don't have any pro- or anti-Obama views, thus I am neutral. I was going to object to the article a few days ago, however, because I noticed from reading through once (and later again) that there was a pro-Obama tone to it, but didn't in the hopes that I could help it maintain FA status through giving editors a list to work on. Sadly, it was not to be because most were dismissed for largely ludicrous reasons of undue weight and "BLP concerns". Happyme22 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in the political advocacy section, which I responded to. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not a problem, it was more for the other guy anyway. I'm sure he'll come back with some outrageous claim or another. Grsz11 05:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates

Hi. First of all my apologies if I violated some policy by telling a user I was going to check if their IP could be linked to the Clinton campaign. It won't happen again. Please take a moment, however, to examine the merits of the dispute. That user is acting in a decidedly POV manner, and used my violation of that policy to distract from the substance of my complaint about their non-neutral actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound confrontational or anything but how about an apology for threatening to trace my IP address and location expose me as a biased political operative when I'm just a random chick in a Mountain West state trying to clarify the superdelegate issues and put them in their proper place (and please note my removal of a similar "pro-Obama" edit to Ted Kennedy's article. Threats of IP tracing and "real life" harm are, while you probably didn't indend them to be so, kind of scary in this new age of "cyberstalking."

Also, I'd love for you and others to help me develop this article. I've got to run to work but will be back tonight to work on it more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008

Smart Ways (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pitt deletion

A Pitt related page, Oakland Zoo (cheering section), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are important. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.CrazyPaco (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Waters Issues

Thanks for your involvement in mediating this dispute. I'm wondering what you'd think of the addition of some "Superdelegate Controversy" section to some article that I'm sure exists on the 2008 Democratic Primary or perhaps in the Superdelegate article. It seems a much more logical place for it than editing the biographies of upward of 700 Superdelgates to include whether or not they voted in accordance with their district.Smart Ways (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, better yet, if you have any guidance (or suggestions of who I should turn to for guidance)for me in the creation of my first article (done to attempt to diffuse this edit war, etc. I'd really appreciate it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 Smart Ways (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Trinity

Perfect. Sorry about the bite. I have removed the tag--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to take this issue with me jointly to dispute resolution if you feel there is a problem.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" policy

Howdy. I notice that you have the userbox "This user removes personal attacks because it's the right thing to do."
I've tried to defuse a number of Wiki-squabbles, and I'm always trying to refine my understanding of civility.
It is not obvious to me that removing personal attacks is the right thing to do. (Neither is it obvious to me that it is not the right thing to do.)
It seems to me that if a person posts public personal attacks, there is an argument to be made for leaving said attacks visible, so that other Wikipedians can see what kind of a person they might be dealing with and form opinions about various users and controversies based on complete evidence.
I'd be interested in your ideas on this subject, here or on my Talk page. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's appropriate for particularly offensive attacks to be left. If a person does make an attack, they should be warned (using the warnings at WP:UTM). This allows a user coming to the talk page to see that their may have been an incident in the past. I also make it known on the page that I altered what exactly happened. I've done this by just replacing the attack(s):
<Comments removed due to personal attacks by User:Example.>, by Grsz11 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up

Thanks for the heads-up. Your first reference answered my question.

I wrote to the canvasser. He is unrepentant.

I don't know what to do. I've never filed a request for comment. I think I might have to.

But, thanks for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is a last resort

Blocking should be used as a last resort, not the first. Wikipedia has tons of rules, and most new users end up breaking one or two of them, but we definitely do not need to block every newbie who appears to break a rule. I disapprove of you clamoring to block User:Taostiger. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright, take 382

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Blaine Stoughton Pierre Larouche Shawn Horcoff Jared Staal Creators Syndicate Färjestads BK Tom Kostopoulos Jack Riley Nick Libett Ed Olczyk Bobby Ryan SaiPa Fred Shero Lyle Odelein Luther Allison Ian Moran Ed Ryan Bill Austin John Cullen

Cleanup Kevin Stevens Panjabi MC Jean Barraqué Merge Vicodin University of Nebraska at Omaha Canada Cup (ice hockey) Add Sources Teemu Selänne Wayne Primeau Joe Mullen Wikify NHL series Johan Mjällby Corporate identity Expand The Next One Robert Morris University Federal Housing Administration

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality board

People do check, myself included, but theres only so many edits you can make in a day. It's a newer board too, so not as many have it watched. Add in that those can be the harder nuts to crack problem wise... it will be a bit slower than others. Lawrence § t/e 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's really no big deal. I forgot I even had that there. Thanks though. Grsz11 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Tom Kostopoulos Lyle Odelein Fred Shero Pierre Larouche Nick Libett Rick Berry Kevin Hatcher Ian Moran John Cullen Ed Olczyk Blaine Stoughton Jean Pronovost Jared Staal Dick Tärnström Creators Syndicate Bobby Ryan Steve Poapst Jack Riley Shawn Horcoff

Cleanup Kevin Stevens National Hockey League rivalries Florida Seals Merge University of Nebraska at Omaha Canada Cup (ice hockey) Vicodin Add Sources Teemu Selänne Fernando Pisani Wayne Primeau Wikify Herb Brooks NHL series Fraternal Order of Police Expand USA Hockey Yann Danis The Next One

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We also do not need you editing Gun Rights, Barack Obama, etc. a half dozen times in one day with your POV24.27.151.226 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Arenas

I recently did an overhaul on the PNC Park article, if you want to look over it and see if there is anything that you feel is missing or needs to be changed, I would appreciate it if you could either change it or leave me a message on my talk page. I put it up for peer review so hopefully it can be elevated to a Good Article soon, so I can move onto Heinz Field, which needs the same treatment. I did a revision of the New Pittsburgh Arena, but there's really not much to be added yet. If there are any other Pittsburgh fans who you think could help out too, let me know. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Povertyneck Hillbillies

Just dropping you a line to let you know that I'm rewriting the article on the Povertyneck Hillbillies. I'm finding multiple reliable sources which seem to be sufficient to meet at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. (That, and I really liked "Mr. Right Now", so I'm especially willing to do some WP:HEY work here.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As long as the article asserts notability, which it didn't previously. In a brief search I had done, I could only find detailed information (passing #1) from the Post-Gazette, and other local sources. Thanks for the work. Grsz11 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the article. It still could use a few more sources, but I think I've taken care of any notability concerns (being the official band of the Pittsburgh Steelers, for one). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

George Faulkner

[2] - Did you see George_Faulkner#References? And how exactly is notability not asserted? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller. Be careful when you undo edits, as you restored peacock terms that I had removed. Grsz11 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...I wish I was Yomangan. "was one of the most important" (if sourced, which it is) "say[s] how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller" (which you ask for...CSD only asks that it be said he was a cool dude that's worth talking about). So I'm not sure what you're suggesting. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Goaltender

My bad I totally was just copying and pasting from the Ottawa article to avoid having to retype everything. On the Pittsburgh article it should be Fleury as he was the goalie playing for Pittsburgh. On the Ottawa article it would be Gerber as he was the goalie who got the decision in Ottawa. Albeit not the win as he would have hoped. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)