User talk:Taroaldo

asswipe

you are an asswipe

• Archive 1
• 2

Hi

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I just reverted my previous "junk edit". So I think I fixed my mistake. You can go ahead with your work. --Gökhan 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Windsor Essex Development Commission

You wrote: "Newspaper articles... are not proper sources." I would agree if the 'newspaper' were a tabloid. However, in this case, the source is the Windsor Star - owned and operated by CanWest Media - a Canadian-based media conglomerate and not the National Enquirer. Kindly withdraw your protest of this article as it is both neutral and factual.

WEWhistleBlower (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always a potential reliability issue with any news sources whether by CanWest or by the National Enquirer. It depends largely on the specific content of the article. Many newspaper articles contain a mixture of opinion, facts, and general editorialization, depending on the qualifications of the writer and the motivations of their editor. Some are plain "opinion" pieces. If someone wants to advocate a specific position it is often easy to find enough "news" sources to give it a good surface appearance. On potentially controversial topics, news sources can tend to slide more to the questionable level of sources. I also find it hard to believe that this is a neutral article given your username, WEWhistleBlower, and that you don't have a conflict of interest in writing this article. Finally, I have nothing to withdraw since I did not nominate the article for speedy deletion. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

After banned user Stalker X (talk · contribs) started vandalizing the Hungary article, you reverted to a version previous to my edits. I'm in no way related to Stalker X, and I made literally hundreds of improvements to that single revision, summarizing paragraphs and removing unnecessary content already present in other articles, among other things. That nearly took me two hours, so I think you should discuss my edits more thoroughly instead of just saying I cleaned up too much; which I don't think is true, because I followed the indications laid down by the Manual of Style in every change I made.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I never directly reverted any of your edits. I reverted Stalker X's edits, but then I thought I may have misinterpreted him so I reverted my own change to reexamine the situation. In the summary here I was referring to the fact that I may have cleaned up too much: I was not referring to you or to any other editor. My last edit to Hungary was at 2241 hrs, 14 March 2009, and there have been 12 subsequent edits by other editors from then until the time of your comment at 0148 hrs, 15 March 2009. I hope this clears up the situation. If not, please let me know. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is clear enough. Sorry if I misunderstood you.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadrian89 and talk page reverts

I know the guideline says that warnings can be removed - and I've seen a few valuable contributors who do take old warnings off etc - but my decision to revert (and my slightly stern edit summary) was based on seeing a number of other editors doing similar things in cases where the vandalism/disruptive editing has been particularly recent, and plus the guidelines do allow for occasional exceptions. Anyway, I'll cede to your experience/sensible explanation in this case. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Danielhill1990 and this B.S.

So I'm trying to figure out how to put these references up and all these tabs saying they are going to delete my article show up! That's some serious bullshit mate! If you people would give me a damn hour or two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhill1990 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Because there is such a high volume of activity around here, stuff can happen quickly. It's usually a good idea to work on a new article within a sandbox on your user page before creating its own page. That will give you the time to get it into shape. Take a look at this page to get an idea of how to start. Also, Wikipedia suggests that people don't create articles about themselves. If you have any questions, just let me know. Taroaldo (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: welcome message

Thanks for moving my welcome message. I put them on the user page a LOT by mistake. I usually go back and fix it but I missed that one! Thanks again mate! Cheers! BIONICLE233 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tammie speedy-deletion

Possibly a new record...page creation, your CSD-G10 tagging, my deletion are all timestamped during the same minute! DMacks (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was freaky! TW sent the notices and by the time the page reloaded, it came up as deleted. Maybe they should implement Olympic timing and go to the hundredth second. :) Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: that page was just created again so I gave it another G10 tag. I just love the persistent ones! Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn...5 minutes for that time. Oh well:) DMacks (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fast Response

Wow. I am impressed with the speed that people are working on Wikipedia. I created the page for the book and a disambig page for the other two titles. I will be adding content to all three, but I need some time. Please be patient as I work on these pages. Thanks!
Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First {{hangon}} tags are only used to contest speedy deletions. They are not to be used in any other case. Second, it appears these books do not meet criteria for notability of books. If you do have additional information and would like to develop the article(s) over time, may I suggest working on them in a sandbox in your userpage instead of in the main encyclopedia. Also, this information may help. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The book I know the most about is the Tumult in the Clouds, General Dynamics publication from 1990. However, I did not want to neglect the other two identically-titled books which are referenced on this site. I was trying to create a disambig page so those two books would be properly referenced. I do not know enough about them, though, to add complete information. How would you suggest that I proceed on those two titles?

Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Whether or not one or more of these books belongs on Wikipedia depends largely on its/their notability. For example, if all three would be considered notable, I would suggest developing all three articles within your userpage. When these articles are ready, a disambiguation page could then be created and the three articles moved to the main namespace at the same time. However, if (again for example) only one of the three is considered notable, then that article could be moved to the main namespace without the need for a disambiguation page
• But if you really only want to work on the article for the book by General Dynamics then I would suggest focusing only on that one. A disambiguation page wouldn't really be needed unless someone else wanted to create an article on one of the other similarly-titled books. (Plus, if you only want to work on the General Dynamics book, you wouldn't even need to worry about whether or not the other two are notable). Hope this helps. Taroaldo (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This helps greatly. I will only focus on the one that I know the most about. Can I remove the Deletion tag from that page?

Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not allow for the removal of AfD tags. Deletion discussions are normally open for five days, and you can continue to edit and improve the article. If you can demonstrate that the article meets the criteria of WP:NB in the interim, then the article should survive. Taroaldo (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will work on it.

Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CHVRS

Hi, many of the previous edits were typed in a very informal tone for Wikipedia, and some were incorrect in regards to the information provided. So, I simply reverted to the last correct version. I guess it may have been inappropriate to call it "vandalism." 142.166.201.61 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsunomix

Hello, i am unsure what the message you left was supposed to mean but i have been posting pertinent, notable, and verifiable information on wikipedia. It has been taken down by GUD UK to whom i posted an appropriate response(the questions i asked are still unanswered). In regards to your post, can you explain to me what it is, specifically, that you deemed disruptive or maliscious? And if you are in authority to answer the question i asked GED UK I would appreciate it. Looking forward to your response.

Elias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunomix (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article Tsunomix was deleted, and normally the associated talk page from a deleted article is also deleted. In the course of tagging Talk:Tsunomix for deletion I noticed that a user talk page (for User:Tsunomix) had been redirected to this article's talk page. It is not appropriate to redirect a user talk page to the talk page of an article. At the same time I also noted that you had redirected your user page to the deleted article Tsunomix. This can cause obvious confusion if someone is trying to reach you and ends up at an article instead. Hope this helps explain why the message was left. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I was unaware that was what had happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunomix (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Personal attacks? care to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.168.203 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Making blind assumptions about another editor and referring to an editor as incompetent, as you did here, isn't constructive. Disagreements can be worked out through reasoned discussion, without resorting to ownership-type arguments. ps please sign your posts. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! I clearly was not paying attention. Luminum (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It happens to everyone from time to time. Taroaldo (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)