User talk:William Graham/Archive2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:20, 18 May 2006

Bernie Sanders Edits

William, please research and cite specifc concerns with "weasal words" and citations' validity before removing them from the article. Further incidents will result in reporting to Administrators and possible blocking from Wikipedia.Straightinfo 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, reverts of simple vandalism are not counted for 3RR rule. Straightinfo 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discussed, straightinfo, this isn't vandalism, it is a content dispute. The concerns with the citations etc are being discussed on talk. --He:ah? 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 64.223.121.83

William, do not edit my talk--Further, in a piece written for TPM Cafe.com --64.223.121.83 (talk · contribs)

Keith Olbermann

What do you propose we do regarding Rcox's edits to the Keith Olbermann articles? --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Our Worlds at War; The Pulse (comics); Speed Force; Arisia (comics); Joe Staton; Golden Eagle (comics); Katma Tui; Shadowpact; Martin Nodell; The Dana Carvey Show; David Corn; Strong Guy; American Dialect Society; 52 (comics); Tom Grummett; Stargate SG-1 (comics); Stage Beauty; Starro; Rann-Thanagar War

Cleanup: Chase (comics); Pundit (politics); 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida
Merge: Grasshopper (comics); Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2006; New Journalism
Add Sources: Jeri Ryan; Doris Kearns Goodwin; Danica Patrick
Wikify: Silent Majority (comics); Grizzly (comics); PHWComics
Expand: Kang the Conqueror; Blood transfusion; Froogle

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 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RCox

I pretty miuch figured out who RCox was the minute I saw his username. OlbermannWatch is a nasty place. One time I had the nerve to disagree with one of their posts and said so, and I still bear the scars! ;) I guess we have no choice but let OlbermannWatch solve their own problems. If RCox keeps up his incivility, there's always Rfc, and if necessary, ArbCom. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, if he brings up a blog I had against him last year, it is true yes. Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the wisest, but what OlbermannWatch had to say made me furious, and I felt like I needed to respond. Hopefully, he won't bring that up again, but something tells me he will. Hopefully, it won't become a huge deal. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting vandalism

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Especially when putting a {{db-band}} tag on a page.[1]. And Don't forget to notify the page creator User:Apescum. Personally I am a M:Inclusionism--E-Bod 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps i sugest you use Template:Nn-warn to tell the creator of articles that their article will be deleted--E-Bod 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled name

I don't think Rabinic means what you think it does. Thanks for coming out though. RabinicLawyer 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Determined" to be unhelpful

I extensively documented my findings. Nobody else did. They just deleted.

I believe Italic textthatItalic text qualifies as vandalism.

Thank you!

Mike Church

aka pensive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter S. Levine Huckiss (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 April 2006.

I am going to look into this issue but didn't i just warn William Graham to use an edit summary. Don't revert withough explaining becose it's taking me longer to evaluate the siduation.--E-Bod 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:Behave is a more appropriat friendly warning template. Anyway i don't see how using a Clear Vandalism warning is aroporiat Remember WP:Bite--E-Bod 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

After a new user adds such a long edit a revert is harsh. You can see in thier edit they used an extra "[" for ouside links and he/she hasn't figued out how to make Italic text properly. If they like to joke let them know about uncyclopedia and if you don't know about it i can rest my case.--E-Bod 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of newspapers in the US

Thank you for reverting that. the_ed17^{(talk)
Use these!} 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert the Ancient Greek article?????? And can I revert things even if I am not an admin? the_ed17^{(talk)
Use these!} 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tag

Hi. You recently tagged Staghorn coral for speedy deletion as a copyvio of this site [2]. I believe that site is in the public domain and as such it may be copied here. I think it is best to analyze this case with more detail before deleting it. I have added a hang on for this purpose. Joelito (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann Links

As I've said on the discussion page, I absolutely agree with you that NO such fan forums should be listed at Wiki. However, I think it grossly unfair that if one is going to be mentioned, that the rest should be excluded. Thus, I came up with a compromise: posting the remaining sites that were being left out of inclusion. As I said, I do not see anythign special or unique about any of them. They all look like your average message board/fan forum to me. And no where else on any of the pages of news personalities or news networks could I find similar links. I did go to Cabal on this, I was overruled and told that since there couldn't possibly be that many sites for such an obscure personality, that Ko.org should remain. I then contacted someone else at Wiki, who told me that they agreed with me--it should be all or none. So that was my split decision: if one was going to be here, then all should be. I've labeled them as fan forums and put them under the external links.

William, were you aware that the list was the result of days of discussion resulting in a consensus, at long last? CuteGargoyle 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to move the discussion over to my talk page, I've responded to you there. CuteGargoyle 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been arbitrasted at the highest levels of Wikipedia and the decision is to let the link to KeithOlbermann.org stand, William. Why are you still deleting it? --DoctorMike 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

When listing something as violating NPOV [3], please discuss what the issue is on the talk page. Please do not just place the POV tag and then leave. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't the person who removed it, but if you were writing it up, I apologise. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there were so many edits to a relatively obscure figure at this hour. Oh well... no hard feelings. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :Since you decided to move the discussion over to my talk page, I've responded to you there.  [[User:CuteGargoyle|CuteGargoyle]] 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
+:This has now been arbitrasted at the highest levels of Wikipedia and the decision is to let the link to KeithOlbermann.org stand, William.  Why are you still deleting it?  --[[User:DoctorMike|DoctorMike]] 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 == Explanation ==