User talk:Meelar

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Want to leave a message? Just put it at the bottom of the page. I do archive--see links below (archived on that date):

VfD on Afrophobia

Hi!

I just wanted to announce that I've overhauled the afrophobia article, and we're brainstorming future additions on its talk page. Some Wikipedians have changed their votes after seeing the revamped article. Binadot 07:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images from the U.S. Congressional Biographical dictionary

Howdy Meelar. Could I ask that you list these images on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images instead? That way we'll have 30 days to look them up instead of just seven. I believe those images are Public Domain, and that the disclaimer applies to other images, but I'll e-mail the site to ask. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

...but I'm hardly new. I used to go by User:B Touch. But, still, thanks tho! :) --FuriousFreddy 17:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LBJ

I think that the part you added "...since 1964" means something else, since you were writing about the 1964 election. Morris 13:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hey! My talentless hack article was a legitimate piece of work. How dare you censor me!

GRider

He's going to keep deleting his talk page you know. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

You posted on his talk page that he shouldn't edit delete-related pages - according to his contribs log to see he's been doing just that. For instance, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Wilson and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Rosenfelder. Radiant _* 09:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

:-/

I didn't edit the proposed injunction against. I merely added a vote to the list of Opposing people. I think way too many people are being harsh on Grider. Klonimus 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who are you really, Klonimus? You've only been here a few days and you seem to already know everything. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

65.27.80.50

User 65.27.80.50 won't quit vandalising, having now taken out Pall Mall (cigarette) and it's talk page. Can we do something about this user? --The Grza 23:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This user has now gone after my user page. Any help? --The Grza 23:36, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Simpsons: Hit & Run

Hi Meelar. In the Hit & Run article I was just wondering why you restored the Halloween episodes reference? I just don't see it myself, it seems like a fairly normal style game with different levels and stuff, if anything then the fact that it has a theme throughout the game means that it's not like the Halloween episodes (which often have unrelated segments). I know there are Halloween references in that there is a Halloween part at the end and I believe that if you have the date set on your PS2 then it has different themes on different days but I wouldn't really call that mirroring the style and spirit of those episodes.

Anyway I'm not going to delete it because maybe I'm just not seeing it but could you please explain it to me! Thanks. -- Lochaber 12:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you accused me of vandalism?

This is from a while ago, but thanks for lying about me here. (I have no idea why it's on wikiquote.org).

Let's see, what'd you say about me?

Has repeatedly edited to say that the United States Constitution was amended 18 times after the bill of rights, not the correct 17. Erased a note left on his talk page. Meelar (talk) 05:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Repeatedly, eh? How many edits do you find by me here? Damn, I only see one.

Here, let's see if I was actually factually wrong. As of 2005, there are 27 Amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution. The United States Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Now, let's count how many times the Constution was amended.

the 1st time the Constitution was amended - 1791 (the Bill of Rights)
the 2nd time the Constitution was amended - the 11th Amendment
the 3rd time the Constitution was amended - the 12th Amendment
the 4th time the Constitution was amended - the 13th Amendment
...

As you can see, in general, for x>1, the xth time the Constitution was amended corresponds to the x+9th Amendment. Now, the last Amendment was the 27th.

x+9=27

That would make x equal to 18. Hence, the Constitution has been amended 18 times since 1789.

But, moreover, did you even look at any of my other edits before reporting me a vandal? A vandal in progress, no less.

As a new user (my account was less than 2 months old or so at that point), I didn't know why the hell there was something on my talk page. Plus, I was right.

Try being more careful. You're not always right. Thanks. -Grick(^{talk to me}) 05:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. I was a new user at the time, so I wasn't quite familiar with talk pages and such (and I thought I may have figured out the math wrong myself). It just surprised me to see myself as a "vandal in progress" upon Googling my name. I try hard to be a productive Wikipedian, and I really did not appreciate seeing my name among vandals'.

Don't take this personally; I hope you just take a bit more care, I suppose.

Cheers. -Grick(^{talk to me}) 06:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Editing

I'm allowed to edit more than 3 times if it is vandalized; which is what you are doing.

What is wrong with what I have posted. It is obvious you don't agree with it but that is not reason for exclusion; especially when I use unbiased facts. --Nyr14 18:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Again, I can revert if I believe the page has been vandalized. Vandalizing being to To destroy or deface (public or private property) willfully [[1]]. Basically that is what you are doing. --Nyr14 18:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the facts does not mean you can delete them. --Nyr14 18:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

John Lott's study was the only one I was aware of but thanks for noting the Brady one.

--Nyr14 23:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Why did you revert my edit at John Kerry just now? Please explain.216.153.214.94 03:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While editing tonight from my other IP address of 216.153.214.94, shortly after I communicated with you, I found myself blocked: "03:23, 7 Apr 2005, Neutrality blocked 216.153.214.94 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Banned user Rex disruptively editing from a (static) IP address. If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username.)".

Without getting into the details of the many run-ins I've had with Neutrality, I'll just point out that his rationale for blocking me appears to be false. I am not a "banned user".

Also, regardless of whether or not Neutrality thinks I ought to use the "Rex" account of Rex071404, the fact is that the Wiki does not require that I log in. That being the case and since it's clear to various Admins who 216.153.214.94 is, I see no logic of any kind in Neutrality's indefinate block of me.

Earlier this evening, I asked on the John Kerry talk page this: "Will those editors who keep immediately reverting all my edits here kindly exlplain why they think they are entitled to keep John Kerry 100% frozen "as-is"? Thank you".

Please take note that Neutrality did not reply. Frankly of the last edit of mine (which you restored after I commented to you), I'd be interested to know precisely what it is about that edit (or style of editing) which Neutrality asserts is "disruptive".

Also, Neutrality has shown himself to be rather blind to the ramifications of his block against me - as evidenced by his self-contradictory position. One one hand, he blocks my IP address yet, on the other he says "If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username". This is nonsense. Neutrality certainly knows (or at least ought to know) that if .94 is blocked by IP address, I cannot edit from that address, logged in or not.

Please go take a look at my thoughtful commentary on the talk page at Lawrence v. Texas. At all times since my 1st edit on this Wiki, I have 100% of the time been willing to dialog and support my edits. It is the bullies such as JameMLane, Gamaliel and Neutrality that have gone out of their way to harry and harrass me since day one. The simple fact is that none of those three like Conservatives. In fact, JameMLane (last time I looked) specifically said on his user page that he is "hostile to the right wing".

For an example of the pro-Liberal bias that is attacking my edits, please see Killian documents and John Kerry. The pro-Liberal bias on those two articles is simply smothering and overwhelming.

Take for instance John Kerry. On the links section of John Kerry, there is a link for the pro-Kerry puff-piece documentary Going Upriver but the Liberal Cabal simply will not allow a link to Stolen Honor (a documentary by a Pulitzer prize winner which is critical of Kerry) to stay in.

And they wonder why people get frustrated and lash out occasionally? They do everything they can to choke off Conservative editors, then when they can no longer goad them to going over 3RR (or otherwise act out), they simply tell lies and call me a "banned user".

Anyway, just thought you'd like to know. Also, if you respond to me, please do so at 216.153.214.94. My aim is to see that block lifted and resume editing from there. Regards, 216.153.214.93 04:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw that you had reverted my user-page twice, and I would just like to thank you and I also returned the favour. You might want to block User:69.250.136.245, as he is most likely the same guy who vandalised yesterday (see my user-page history). Hav~e a nice day Gkhan 17:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

admin

Thanks for supporting my admin nomination Meelar; I appreciate it, and the kind words as well. Happy editing, Antandrus 05:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problems and RC Patrol

Hi Meelar, I would like to help with maintenance on on the Wikipedia namespace.

Is there a way for non-admins to help with closing out copyright problems (to help shorten the backlog on that page)?
When I'm patrolling the RC, how can I avoid duplicating others' work (e.g. both me and someone else reporting a vandal)? That type of situation has happened a few times.

I was going to work on closing out VFDs, but I'm too much of an inclusionist to even handle it. :) Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 01:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of talk

Please abstain from removing my comments from talk pages without explication. -- User:Docu

In response to your question on my talk page:

see [2]. Never mind, if it was just a problem when trying to resolve edit conflict due to two trying to edit the page in the same time. -- User:Docu

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

Hi Meelar, You listed some images that you uploaded as copyvios (from http://bioguide.congress.gov). Bioguide notes that not all images are PD, but I couldn't determine if the images listed were a copyright violation (let me know if I missed something here).

I re-listed them on pui. --Duk 23:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe someone at pui will know more, also there's probably a fair use rationale, and an email to bioguide might be worthwhile. I've tagged other bioguide images as {{unverified}}. --Duk 03:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...Ive been a wikipedia reader for a while, but Ive only recently started writing articles. I'll read over some of that stuff you sent me

Reply to CSHC

Whoops, I focused more on the plot and storyline. I will improve it.

Reply to CSHC

Whoops, I focused more on the plot and storyline. I will improve it. --TheSamurai 21:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Posted Article

Hey, howcome you deleted my article "Wang's Law"? I mean, no one is seriously ever going to search for Wang's Law, and it isn't offensive, and I'm not vandalizing an actual page.

Oh My Gods! VFD

I am against the deletion on the Oh_My_Gods!. As an effort against this I have tried to revise the page to remove all first-person references from the original author. --Lzygenius 07:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

Thank you very much for your comments; You are absolutely right and I am taking this off FAC and moving it to peer review. --Theo (Talk) 10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply

(Categories) Thanks - I've already added categories to several and will added either stub or a category to the rest. Brholden 11:34, 12 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
It will be used only by users who want to use it.
Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

I will be adding the source information. I am doing stuff one at a time. After I am done with the FL congressional delegation, I will be adding the source information.

Canadian legislators

Hmm...I'm not sure what the general term for both would be. I was thinking "parliamentarians," but Senators aren't really in Parliament. I'm not sure there's a good term for Senators except "useless rich people." You might want to try asking at the Canadian wikipedians' notice board, a lot of people there work on Canadian government articles. Adam Bishop 01:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops

I think that while you were deleting Church of judas I was flagging it for speedy deletion. Please delete it again. Sorry MicahMN | Talk 05:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your kind words, which, as usual, come when I most have need of them. As far as leaving permanently, I doubt I could ever get escape velocity from this place, but I may go into a larger orbit and get clear of the atmosphere for a few days or weeks. It's frustrating to feel as though anytime you voice an opinion you're brushed aside as a "petty prude". I'd thought I'd earned a little more than that here, but I increasingly see unfamiliar names--the old guard disappears and I haven't had the energy to meet the new folks, so I suppose it's no wonder they think I'm some reactionary from the hills. All my best wishes to you: for your sake (and the sake of a number of other good souls still editing here also), I promise not to disappear for good. But if I make little exits here and there, I trust you will forgive me. All the fatigue and exasperation seems to be hitting me at once; April is the cruelest month. Until later, Jwrosenzweig 21:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

Sorry Meelar, I changed it back before I saw your comment. I still feel that we should stick with the original one until the original debate is complete. Maybe the issue of this compromise image could be raised in the main IFD debate, for further discussion. Cheers. TigerShark 00:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KKT

What I have posted is fact, from the inside. What you do deleted about Cambridge I witnessed and I wish you would return that to the page. You are covering for her. WillC

KKT 2

I was neutral, stating fact! Furthermore, if I want to blank my talk page, it's my page. Something tells me you have a complex if you are a DC college student studying politics. I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN. I KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU.

Perhaps you should "assume good faith" about the information I'm sharing.

If this is how it's going to be on wikipedia I have just edited my last page forever.....dimestore elitists.....

WP:POINT

So nominating someone for adminship now constitutes WP:POINT? If your concern is my anonymity, that will soon be rectified. 63.173.114.137 23:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)