User talk:Everyking

Questions, comments, thoughts, complaints? (last blanked 7/27/06)

---

Image copyright problem with Image:Lalavideo1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lalavideo1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for right now all I can do is post right here. It's a screenshot, it's low-quality, and I received explicit permission from the site owner of the site I took the image from. That's all I know. Everyking 11:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

Hey, sorry for not getting back to you about your email earlier. I was caught up in real life issues and other stuff on WP, so I filed your email away and forgot about it. Just thought I'd let you know that I have been doing some cutting and pruning, but I'm still not able to make any headway WRT summary style. I still can't see how to effectively do it without harming either the narrative flow of the article or the article's neutrality. A version which could do both would probably omit a significant amount of detail, harming the article's comprehensiveness. I've already junked a lot of extraneous material which I was doubtful about, and tightened up the writing. Maybe you could give it a look again, and suggest more ways to cut it down, or an approach to summary style I haven't thought of? Johnleemk | Talk 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, but fortunately I did find some redundant quotations and unnecessary verbosity that could be cut without harming comprehensiveness or flow. The article's just over 100kb now, and much of that is citations and the bibliography. Johnleemk | Talk 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

I wrote the article Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act, the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. It appeared on DYK and right away somebody "tags" it for deletion. I inviteyou to express yourself here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act. Thank you Tony the Marine 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Canute the Great

Any chance you could help with this article? It has long been something of a mess and now it has just been rewritten to be considerably more of a mess. Haukur 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Upset

I nominated the article for deletion because the song wasn't released as a single and the information about it was present on the I Am Me article. If you want me to, I'll consider nominating it for undeletion soon (though not now - I'm at the library and it's about to close). Extraordinary Machine 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've listed it at deletion review. Extraordinary Machine 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulfkeitel Couplande

Could I have your opinion on this AfD? It's a somewhat unusual case. Haukur 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

horrible

that's a really stupid idea for Wikipedia that they had with the having to approve every edit first. hope it doesn't happen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie The Pooh (Disney)

Um, did you know that discussion closed over five months ago? Powers ^T 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I linked it as an example of a previous discussion on the topic. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh" and the discussion on the whole thing at Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh. Thanks! Powers ^T 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A Northumbrian miscellany

As you've contributed greatly to whatever is good in the various articles on Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, I'd like to solicit your opinion on a few issues.

• Edwin of Northumbria or Edwin of Deira ? I'd go with the second, which seems to be much more common, and probably more accurate.
• Viking-Age and Late Anglo-Saxon Earls of Bernicia naming. These are Osulf I of Northumbria, Uchtred the Bold, Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria (that was me), Osulf II of Northumbria, Waltheof of Bernicia Eadulf I of Bernicia, Eadulf III of Bernicia and Ealdred I of Bernicia. I don't like "of Northumbria" or "of Bernicia", because that's what's used for kings. Do you think "of Bamburgh" would be ok for that family, or should be just use "X, Earl of Y" ?
• Lastly, it's been suggested that Æthelthryth, the first Mrs Ecgfrith of Northumbria, is better known as Etheldreda. I can't see it myself, but if you have any thoughts on it please leave a note at Talk:Æthelthryth.

Thanks in advance and best wishes ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi Everyking. Could you please (if you are able and have the time) pop along to Talk:Transphobia to help settle a dispute over the same edit over and over. I'm attempting to clean up the article, but it's pointless trying to do so while somebody is more concerned with inserting one paragraph of opinion than they are with the article itself. The sooner the dispute can be resolved one way or the other, the better. Kind regards, Crimsone 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:OwenX placed a warning on the users talk page last night for the vandalism, and still 220.1.234.8 is persisting at making these edits. Any help would be appreciated, as my small amount of time on wiki continues to be eaten up by this issue rather than in actually getting on with the editing and improving I come here to enjoy. Kind Regards, Crimsone 15:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch

I have no interest in going through the user set up there, but I read it and can't stand watching themselves get into a flurry. The diff is in the first paragraph and it's nothing more than personal information of the sort prohibited by WP:BIO. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I ask, are you talking about something to do with this? I don't mean to interfere. I'm just trying to help cut the workload by working out which section you are talking about :) Crimsone 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. My mistake Crimsone 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I have Your source for the birthdate of Jean Vanier? Canadian Encyclopedia writes He was born on Sept. 28. Igoulet 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, about the birthdate of Jean Vanier I Guest that so many sources can't all be wrong! Thanks so much for the references. Igoulet 02:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

• [1] John Reid 06:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Desysopped

You have been emergency desysopped by the decision of the Arbitration Committee for offering to post deleted content publicly. As an administrator, we expect you to know better than to ever do something as inappropriate as that. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Everyking_desysopped for more information. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Criticism of them --Anomo 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

I regret that you have been desysopped. I believe you meant well. DS 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You were desysopped, not for making deleted content available, but for talking about it? I'm stunned. Sadly, I had more to say about this, but I'm probably already on thin ice for merely reading your talk page. --Kbdank71 20:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost

The Signpost article about you is in progress and at User:Ral315/Everyking desysopped. If you have any questions ask this user. ForestH2 t/h/c 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oswald of Northumbria

You weren't the nominator, but I think you've been the main contributer, so I just wanted you to know that Oswald of Northumbria has just made GA. Congrats. Eixo 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sysop

I can't see any valid reason for you to be have been desysopped (sp?). For what it's worth, if you choose to run again, you've got my support. Badbilltucker 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to my knowledge, all you did was post something that got deleted from Wikipedia somewhere else. Last I checked, there's nothing wrong with that. I'll support readmining you. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't do that: I suggested I might post some deleted content on a forum but then decided not to. I was desysopped just for making the suggestion. Everyking 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is even worse. Honestly, you're one of the better admins around, one who does things that he thinks are for the better of the project at all times rather than what the Cabal says you have to do. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have my support too, even if I haven't known you before. ArbCom took a few steps too far and as a matter of fairness and honesty, this desysop must be undone. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mine too --Oblivious 19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been on holiday and I read the report in the Signpost just now. This is outrageous. You have my support. I will watch for your renomination if this absurdity isn't overturned at some other level (I regret to say that it doesn't look like it will). — mark ✎ 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If the reason for desysopping is just what was stated on yesterday's RfA then the witches got more mercy before inquisition court than you before ArbCom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Renom

Okay! It will take me some time to work out a proper nomination, laying out why you're the man for the job :) Let's keep in touch. Haukur 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking

Well, there it is! :) Good luck with the questions. Haukur 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping to be the first to offer to renominate; I'll have to settle, I suppose, for trying to beat Haukur, et al., for the first support... Joe 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never spoken to you before, but I was always a fan of your administrative actions. I'm sorry for my oppose on your RfA, which is purely based on reasons of time. Take care -- Samir धर्म 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd have gotten my support, mate - as far as I can see your administrive actions were without fault. CharonX/talk 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed early? I thought it was to run until the 14th. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Count me in as on of those folks who believed you should have been resysopped as soon as the "emergency" had passed. I thought permanent desysopping required some sort of process. From an optics point of view, it just seems like they used this "emergency desysop" to get you desysopped quickly and to sidestep the process it takes to normally get someone permanently desysopped. I don't know if that's their intentions, but that's what it looks like from the outside. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethelweard/Ælfweard

First off, sorry about your RfA. I'd have certainly supported it if I'd been aware that it was up. Next time give me a yell ! Anyway, I'm looking for input on where to move Ethelweard (son of Edward the Elder) to. John Kenney suggested Ælfweard of Wessex, which seems fair enough. If you have any thoughts, let us know at Talk:Ethelweard. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He forgot to say "nya nya"

Sad, isn't it? --Kbdank71 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so much "nya nya" as "why do you keep saying I wasn't empowered to do something when I clearly was?" I find this continual head-banging against the stark, cold facts ofthe matter absolutely impossible to understand. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Kbdank71 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. While I can understand you thinking my comment was about you, rest assured it was not. --Kbdank71 20:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

desysoped

so sorry to hear about that, would've supported your RFA but it was closed before i got there... keep up the good work.--I'll bring the food 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali Abdullah Saleh

You made some great edits to Ali Abdullah Saleh[2]. Yesterday I took content from the references you provided and expanded a little[3]. I hope this is to your liking. Regards, EFG 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: About sources

If I remove uncited information, then there's motivation for users who added the info, or who wish to keep it in the article, to look for sources. In most cases, simply adding {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags (which are often removed without explanation) doesn't have the same effect. When I know who added the content to the article, I leave them a message on their talk page asking for sources. Sometimes I do look for sources (usually when I think the info is useful), sometimes I don't (usually when the info is blatantly false, unverifiable or, in my opinion, unnecessary), sometimes I move it to the talk page instead of removing it completely, sometimes I add tags. Extraordinary Machine 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard FAC

Thank you for your help in stating the case for Charizard, Taxman is having some teething issues with the idea. Cheers, Highway ^Daytrippers 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Arnold Rüütel

Hi, I'm fed up with User:Clossius disruptive behaviour and indulging in personal attacks, rather than elucidating what does he exactly regard as shortcomings of the article. I've tagged his talk page with NPAs , but he keeps removing these (calling my actions 'vandalism' or 'hooliganism'). Could you suggest anything on comment on the issue?Constanz - Talk 06:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be interested in suggestions and comments also, and I am likewise fed up. I've suggested cooperation, as well as conflict resolution, and I honestly think that the attacks have come from User:Constanz first.

I indeed changed the wordding of Arnold Rüütel and continued with contributions. I've given the diffs on talk:Arnold Rüütel, which probably show where the attacks came from.--Constanz - Talk 06:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this for once :-) - I also admit that I've pretty much stopped editing this article or almost any other until this is somehow solved, because it's not fun working on Wikipedia under these conditions. Clossius 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no ownership of Arnold Rüütel, I just asked to have it balanced and what seemed to me old party-political campaign material shortened (not removed), and I did this in a concrete and careful (not wholesale) way, as the history shows. Since I genuinely think the NPA labels were put on my discussion space by User:Constanz in order to harrass - especially after I had said that I did not wish to communicate with him anymore at all, or fight -, and since he is not an admin, I think I may remove them. If that's not the case, I won't, of course. I would be more than happy to stop any form of discourse with Constanz, because I am really sick and tired of being harrassed, and I would be happy about any suggestion of how this could be achieved. Clossius 06:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)