User talk:Falcon8765

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Additionally, if you are here to add some inane vandalism, I've heard it all before.

In Spanish, French and Italian, denonyms are NOT capitalized.

If it is a rendering of the Spanish word, as the italics clearly denote, then it should be spelled in lowercase: latino, whereas in English it is capitalized: Latino. Why must you impose anglo capitalization rules on our beautiful language? Gringo tienes que ser!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.140.204 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if words or sentences from other languages are included, their orthography must be correct within that language. You wouldn't insert German or Greek sentences with wrong capitalization, right? As stated by the complaining user, the words are written in italic, implying they are not English versions. 88.64.99.64 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between valid edit and vandalism

on UNAM page. My edit was update outdated information. 174.16.141.172 (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs a source. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Carlos-Slim-Helu-family_WYDJ.html

Nvm, see that you are right. Please consider getting a username. Falcon8765 (talk) (UTC)Aristeo Canlas Fernando

888

I added 888 as the number of Jesus twice but you reverted them. Here is the Edit Summary: Greek Numeral System; name of Jesus in Greek is ΙΗΣΟΥΣ; Ι=10; Η=8; Σ=200; Ο=70; Υ=400; Σ=200; add them up; total is 888. Pls check Internet.

After you have checked the Internet and find what I say is valid, could you please add it? 211.31.24.202 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2010

Barnstar

		The Long-Winded-Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For a long, illustrious and under-recognized wiki-career fighting vandalism. The encyclopedia owes a tremendous debt to you. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Falcon8765 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Violin

What is your association with http://breizhpartitions.free.fr/en/violin_scores.php? You seem to have no problem allowing a similar link to exist on the page, yet the link I posted, which is an arguably more comprehensive resource, is deleted. I am forced to believe that you are directly associated with http://breizhpartitions.free.fr/en/violin_scores.php, so you have incentive to leave that link in place. Is this the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.39.108 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that one. Removed it too. Falcon8765 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That O level Section is completely true

It is on the view point of most people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.45.4 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources please. Falcon8765 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please help me do a bio on Maria Papapetros

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.223.26 (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you so smart.

You could be in error when you take off some people's edits. NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK just something to keep in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.69.220 (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and the are more than welcome to discuss it with me should they disagree. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Take your last comment in responce to mine for example. Have someone proof read it and tell you whats wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.69.220 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides soon as you get offended or don't like what yous see you erase it. Who put you in charge of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.69.220 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) A lot of people might be offended by some of your comments. Those of which could be considered personal attacks. You should be reported with your IP address blocked and unable to edit wiki. Goodbye I am done wasting time on you. I am just going to report you to Jimmy himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.69.220 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Falcon is perfectly entilted to remove comments left on his/her user talk page, as although they belong to the community users are given wide latitude in managing their talk page, including removing comments if they wish. This discussion shows that Falcon in perfectly willing to discuss any useful feedback you have on his or her behaviour, however the comment removed [1] clearly can not be considered useful feedback. BTW I can't see anything particularly bad about Falcon's reply which you said should be proofread by someone else. Yes he/she left out the y in 'they' but considering you used 'responce' in the reply and left out an apostrophe in "what's" you probably shouldn't be making a fuss about that. (Proofread is also usually either spelt as one word or with an apostrophe BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with my edits?

I am trying to edit the Wilson Audio page with accurate information. I have tried over and over to post CORRECT information on there and it keeps getting taken down. What is wrong with the information that I have posted? Is there ANY of that correct information that I CAN use? The information on there currently is incorrect and I can verify that. Please tell me out of my edits what I can use so that I don't keep getting my work taken down? lildebs888 May 10th, 2010 2:54 MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildebs888 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Correcting information is fine, it's just how you are formatting it is all. Look at how the information is presented in another article to see examples of how it's arranged :). Or try searching around on WP:Help. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the formating issue and I put up a revision of it (so far it has not been reverted... yet). So it is not the information really that I am putting up, but the formating that is an issue? Is having current and past products up ok? Is have external links to articles or reviews ok? Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions :) Lildebs888 May 10th, 2010 3:05 MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildebs888 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it was the formatting. I went ahead and fixed it for you. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, Falcon! It looks so much better :) Lildebs888 May 10th, 2010 8:29PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildebs888 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Falcon? I have a question for you. In previous edits I had posted up awards that have been given to Wilson Audio over the years and more up to date articles/reviews on Wilson products. Are these ok to put up? Thank you again for all your help. You have been so helpful! :) Lildebs888 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, just remember to find a source for it Falcon8765 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundant tag-boxes

I removed a "notability" tag because it was directly followed by an "unreferenced" tag, which should be the main reason for the former. Therefore, I considered the notability tag redundant.

On stubs, the boxes due to tags are often just bloating articles, without helping anyone. Adding three tags to an obviously not well-maintained stub doesn't really help anyone. Users should remember the purpose of such tags instead of utilizing them to state the obvious.

For the sake of consistency, I'll leave the edit reverted. But these nagging boxes are generally a problem. Maybe there should be a larger discussion about this. Consider articles like Scattering_amplitude: the page has undergone numerous edits, but not a single source was included, even though the tag has been there for three years now. Deleting such content is obviously unreasonable, so it just remains in this state. On a page about some hardly known pornographic video, however, I fear a similar situation could be used to justify deletions that do more harm than good.

So my edit had two reasons: the redundancy to justify it, and the general thought that inflationary use of such tags isn't very productive. 88.64.99.64 (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The maintenance tags put articles in problem categories that get's them improved eventually, even if it might take a long time for certain low traffic pages. Additionally, the notability and unreferenced tags aren't redundant when placed together as they refer to different issues. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

• From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted

• Commons deletions: Porn madness

• Book review: Dan O'Sullivan's Wikipedia: a new community of practice?

• Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide

• News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All

• In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Politico is not a reliable source?

really?

A politico blog is not. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page

Thank you for catching the troll that was after my talk and user page! :) ElationAviation(talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redemption

Just wondering, why did you revert my edits to Redemption (disambiguation)? Redemption the card game has been around for 15 years, and was the second major CCG released (after Magic: The Gathering). I feel it is notable enough to add to the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.113.147 (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit got caught when I reverted some spam. I restored it. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Violet Wand Guild

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Violet wand do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

   If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. 

---

Hi Falcon, questioning removal of link to www.violetwands.org on article for violet wands, as that link has existed for that article for almost 5 years since 2005 (removed late 2009, then I re-added the link recently). I checked the guidelines you note for external links and saw nothing that would apply to removing its 4 year existing link in the first place. Can you clarify the reason for its removal in 2009, then in 2010 after my re-add as it does not appear at first glance that it fits any of the criteria for links to avoid that you point to. Would appreciate clarification and specific reason.

This organization is a worldwide org consisting of some 7,000 members and contains the knowledgebase for violet wand use, repair, and construction and the results of their substantive research. (most of wiki's article content was paraphrased from this organization's content.) This is THE expert group on violet wands and everything that appears on the web and in print in fact, in regards to violet wands originated with their experts and their published content.

Ideally, this article on violet wands/ violet rays should probably be separated into two articles. Violet rays are antique 'quack' medical devices with a specific set of frequencies meant for alternative medical therapies. Violet wands are modern made devices specifically manufactured for erotic stimulation. They both have common components and history but are as different (and as similar) as computer monitors and televisions. Like computer monitors and televisions, they have people who use product A for product B's purpose and vice versa through some modification. But when you are talking violet wand, you are defining an adult product specifically for erotic stimulation. So an article on violet wands should logically contain this international education group's link. An article on Violet Wands that contains much content from this group's publications, ought to reference the expert group.

I am one of the only two violet wand manufacturers in the world, and yes while my interest is commercial, the Violet Wand Guild's is educational. I am a member, but not a member of the officer's board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.248.113 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam

You said that it was a link to a site I am affiliated with

This is incorrect. I found the link on Goolgle and found it really useful. No need to remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.227.22 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an automated template message. Nevertheless, if you want to add links read WP:EL. Thanks for trying to help though! Falcon8765 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit of Osamu Nishimura's profile was legitimate

I don't know how to or have time to edit in references and use a citation, but here is a link to his Online World of Wrestling profile:

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/o/osamu-nishimura.html

You can also check the External Link to his Puroresu Central Profile (I believe the other external link is outdated/defunct, so you might want to consider removing it).

If you want to go ahead and make those revisions, please do. My edits were legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.205.89 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Undid my revert, thanks for the source. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Houston Riot 1917 Re: Precipitating Causes

Two white police officers activities inside of a black female's home has nothing to do with the black soldiers' mutiny. Nothing. Further, the way the article describes the treatment of the black female is not only desultory from the impetus of the riot, it is also clearly designed to be inflammatory (there is also no way to actually substantiate this version taken from a biased source like the Crisis Magazine). This article need to stick to the actual and pertinent facts.

Why in the heck would you allow this version to sit on Wiki, in place of the one described here: http://hpdsound.ipower.com/officerdown.htm

By doing so, you are showing bias... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.50.84 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph in question slightly to be more neutral. However, please don't remove sourced content that you disagree with without discussing it on the article's talk page first - I'd have been more than happy to change the article had you done so. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits to Tiago Splitter?

You keep reverting my edits to Tiago Splitter and state they are not able to be verified and are not coursed. This is wrong. Not only is it easily verifiable that Splitter was ACB MVP, my edit was also sourced.74.194.176.82 (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing any sources in your edit, and you're removing the height/weight templates for some reason. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a source and I also put the correct height weight template for Euroleague players. I will remind you of the 3 revert rule. You reverted it twice already.74.194.176.82 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, not seeing a source, but whatever. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, [2], where is the source you are drawing from in that diff? Falcon8765 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit is sourced and verifiable. I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else. Just remember the 3 revert rule.74.194.176.82 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You say it's sourced and yet provide no source or point me to the source in question. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the diff you posted the source is right there. Now, I see you have roll backer rights. Would not falsely reverting edits, claiming they are not sourced, when they were lose you those rights? I think it would. In the diff you posted you can clearly see the source I added. Right where I added that he was Spanish League MVP is the source. Why are you rolling back this edit and falsely claiming it is not sourced? Roll back rights can be revoked you know. I am just trying to help wikipedia by making good and legit edits. I'm not here to edit war and revert war.74.194.176.82 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I havn't reverted your edits since we started this discussion. I see that I was mistaken about the template thing now, and that you just changed some of the Wikilinks, so there was a misunderstanding and I apologize. The number changes in the height/weight fields made me think you were just inputting raw numbers. However, this would have been sorted out much faster if you had been less combative and not threatened me with policy violations instead of making yourself understood. Again, I apologize, I tend to be highly suspicious of IP edits based on my long experience here and yours was flagged. Thanks for contributing.Falcon8765 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Attack"

I made no comment on Expo377 as an individual, and only attempted to correct him on his erroneous accusations of vandalism. Please take greater care when designating discussions as "attacks" in the future.

--ArthurMiles (talk)

Accusing someone of defamation is a personal attack. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. However, he started it, and until this point is acknowledged I will cross my arms and pout, or possibly hold my breath. --ArthurMiles (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Much Thanks

Thanks for reverting Arthur's edits. I'm not in a very good mood right now so I was unable to deal with the guy in a respectful manner (as you can see in my comments when I reverted his). However, I'm still accusing him of vandalism. Anyways, here's a cookie as a token of my thanks.

Expo377 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cab Calloway Alumnus Additions

While I understand your desire to keep Wikipedia vandal-free, the additions made to the notable alumni page are factual. I would be interested to see what the standard for verification was on Mr. Melendez and Mr. Millison's entries, and why the entries for Ms. Boyer et al did not fit the aforementioned criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.108.214 (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just removed the other two as well. They need to be cited that they actually went there. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for being fair in your standards. For what it is worth, I can vouch that Melendez and Millison were and are, respectively, students at CCSA. As for citations, what would be an acceptable entry? As far as I'm aware, there are no digital records of Cab Calloway's enrolled students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.108.214 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, non-digital records are fine as long as they are accessible. Preferably, a third party news biographical article or the like mentioning their alma mater would be best. WP:RS lays out the guidelines for sources, though it can be a bit long. Falcon8765 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Final Warning

Ruh roh

--ArthurMiles (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of business integration software

Why did you remove my edits to Comparison of business integration software?

This article may benefit from adding a number of packages that are currently used. Am I not following the right procedures?

125.236.200.149 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Irene

The chain of yes templates threw me off, sorry about that! I restored your edit. Time for me to take a break I think. Falcon8765 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarey Savy

I know this article has been Declined MANY TIMES! BUT! I think i have found notable references plus, he will be featured on a Cambodian daily newspaper by Wednesday as stated on his myspace. Here's the thing he is making non-trival coverage in Cambodia so, can you unblock his name from the blacklist so i can improve it on a subpage? (BestContributor (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Ask on your talk page. Not within my power. Falcon8765 (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Erotic electrostimulation

Hi,

I can understand you moved links of single maunfacturers to not be biased here - but deleting the link to the biggest and oldest completely free and comunity driven board that holds all the knowledge of a whole community of people who keep inventing new devices and helping newbies every day to keep on the safe side? Most of the contents of the article IS in fact done by smartstim members and/or copied from smartstim posts. EE does bear a certain level of danger - every newbie who checks on the board is very likely not to do the most dangerous mistakes -- deleteing the reference to smartstim means putting mostly young and unexperienced newbie stimmers at risk to make potentially lethal mistakes. Again: smartstim is free of charge and relies on donations just like wikipedia- it's from the community for the community - everybody there works voluntary and it's to my knowledge the information-richest site of it's kind. So - I've seen there has been quite some edit and re-edit already .... I am not a friend of this kind of conversation by editing until one is fed up with going on ... could you please consider to re-think your decision? - maybe have a look at the site that you are disconnecting from it's wikipedia article? 95.222.175.61 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I extrapolated that you were talking about Erotic electrostimulation, which I hadn't edited. But seeing the link you added, I removed it. If the material on the article is from the website in question, feel free to cite it as thus via WP:CITE. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the link - it was somebody else in fact -- and it's not about citing - it's about informing people wo search for information properly. And it's about safety. There were paragraphs about safety that have been removed because whoever thought it's obvious .... and it is not. If you look on the site there are several people a week that ask exactly those questions and when they come to ask they are saved from serious damage for their body - if not then maybe not. Besides there is a very concerning picture on the article that shows a practice that is better NOT done -- I don't see why you decided to remove a link that is very useful to people seeking information about the given topic95.222.175.61 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HalJor#Smartstim 95.149.232.170 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)