Jump to content

User talk:Dr who1975

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.138.242.150 (talk) at 19:26, 17 October 2007 (→House). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Dr who1975, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian {T C @} 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Pug3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pug3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:People known by pseudonyms

Hehe, yeah the list seemed pretty short to me (and still does). My opinion is shortened names such as Little Steven don't count, they're more like nicknames. Another example would be Cher, which is simply a shortened version of her full name Cherilyn LaPiere. So I didn't add her. However, I did add Ritchie Valens, which I felt was sufficiently different from Richard Valenzuela, not to mention his label specifically changed his name for marketing reasons. Even deeper in the gray area is my addition of Ace Frehley (born Paul Frehley) which could possibly qualify as a nickname, but since it was Ace instead of "Ace" I opted to add him.

One question I've been pondering is the name of GWAR members. To me, Oderus Urungus et al. are characters, in some cases played by different musicians over time. In fact, I think Dave Brockie may be just as well known by his birth name. I think I'll remove them.

Another curiosity is that both Puff Daddy and P Diddy appear on the list, but his current name, Diddy, doesn't. I was considering only categorizing his latest moniker, and for this reason would also remove The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, who has gone back to Prince and incidentally was born Prince Nelson.

So this is my long, boring answer to your question. Would you agree with my analysis? Hoof Hearted 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding changing last names only - I was a little unsure when I added Mel Brooks, and Natalie Portman. I'll admit it was a judgement call and certainly wouldn't object to removing their names. I'll agree with you about Oderus Urungus. My main argument was The Dave Brockie Experience which states his real name, but GWAR is a much more popular band. (BTW, are you a fan like me?) I agree with you 100% on Steagal - that was a new one to me. My concern with Diddy was only a technical one: the catergoy is titled "People known by pseudonyms", not "Pseudonyms used by people". Thus, in a sense, Sean Combs appears on a list of people several times. But I agree that the ridiculous nature of all the name changes are in the "spirit" of the list, and ultimately wouldn't object to their inclusion. You're absolutely right about The Artist..., past pseudonyms are certainly valid.
As for nickname vs. pseudonym - I think this is a subjective debate with a lot of overlap between the two. I would agree with the nickname article that describes the term as a shortened or familiar form of someone's real name. (Matisyahu is the Hebrew name for his real name, Matthew). Whereas a pseudonym allows much more variation from someone's real name.
My thinking is that people on this category should have a real article (not a redirect) for the pseudonym. However, there will always be exceptions (Spice Girls, The Artist...). This ensures notability and a genuine pseudonym. I violated my own rule with Mr. Lordi, and will probably remove him (unless you think it would be a good idea to list the Lordi guys too). I haven't had much experience with categories. I was thinking of adding some text at the top with "guidelines for inclusion" - do you know if that's frowned upon? Would you like to work together to develop the "official" guidelines?
Hey, it's been great talking to you. Glad to know there are others out there who can be serious while having fun. Hoof Hearted 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Guidelines for Inclusion

  • It is best if the pseudonym is a wiki article (not a redirect).
  • Try to include true pseudonyms rather than nicknames.
    • The first name or surname should differ significantly from the real name.
    • Quotation marks around a name usually indicate a nickname.
    • In general, stage names and pen names are valid, character names are not. I think Ali G and Pee Wee Herman are good examples of character name exceptions.
  • Former pseudonyms may be included.
  • People who have had their names legally changed should not be included.
  • The person should be relatively well known. I'm questioning the validity of Isambard Khroustalov, Melnyk, and Ray Zee among others.

--Hoof Hearted 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coordinates on Template:Infobox Stadium

If I understand you correctly on your recent posts, the template you are looking for is Template:Coor title dms. PETCO Park has the template tag near the bottom of the page, next to the Template:MLB tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Huh? I made a change to it but I reverted it back to your version... If something's wrong then it's probably from your version. --3bulletproof16 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate precision...

You have changed some stadium coordinates to be very precise, such as Coors Field to 39°45′21.14″N 104°59′39.02″W / 39.7558722°N 104.9941722°W / 39.7558722; -104.9941722. Even though the whole number seconds are plenty to still stay within ballpark 39°45′21″N 104°59′39″W / 39.75583°N 104.99417°W / 39.75583; -104.99417. Is there any reason for this precision, is this a citable coordinate with some reference? Otherwise, it seems a little overboard. --MattWright (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to undo them, was just curious the reason for it. Thanks for the response. --MattWright (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get the 50 yard line or pitcher's mound for closed roof stadiums? --MattWright (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Pug

Hi Dr who1975,

As part of the German userbox solution, would you be willing to move "Template:User Pug" to your userspace? If you are but aren't sure about the details, I can do it for you and let you know when the changes are made. Or, I can move it to my userspace, where most of the other pet boxes are located. The biggest difference you'll notice is it won't be listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets, which is in the process of being userfied. However, it still will be listed at the larger directory, User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Let me know what you think. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! No hurry.

Rfrisbietalk 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so a bit of a hurry. The original page is gone so I moved Pug to {{User:UBX/Pug2}}. You still can move it to your area when you have the time. You can see it at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets.

Rfrisbietalk 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's been a busy week.--Dr who1975 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's still there.

Rfrisbietalk 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it!

Rfrisbietalk 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have to delete pages, and I think I have to ask, so I'll do that in a while. Congrats! :-) Rfrisbietalk 23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How did you know about Clifford Davis being involved in the 1954 U.S. Capitol Shooting incident? When my father asked a Capitol guard about this incident in 1980, he was shown the bullet hole in the ceiling (next to the great seal, it resulted from one of the shooters being wrestled to the floor while in the act of firing) and told that he was the first person to have asked about it in at least 10 years (presumably to that guide, at least). Rlquall 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the verifiability guidelines, we're really not supposed to use one Wikipedia article to verify another or as a source. In reality, nearly all active Wikipedians have done it at one time or another, so you certainly haven't offended me, but I was hoping that you maybe had an independent source with which I was unfamiliar. In any event, I thank you for getting back with me, especially so fast, and wish you happy editing! Rlquall 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New User Box

FSU Helmet box File:FSU Helmet.png Noles1984 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mr_uu

".... but have you been to the Bahamas!?" No but would like to spend some air-miles and go there one-day, thanks I added Dr.Who fan box from the 3rd doctor, mr_uu 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercentenarians.

Heh DrWho. I didn't even look at the date of birth and date of death of Thomas Peters. I just saw the 112 years 80 days part, no idea where that came from.

The thing is, Wikipedia had a Thomas Peters page and it got deleted, and it seems that the people who wrote the new Thomas Peters (supercentenarian) page were not the previous authors, so it seems that hid page became completely different and rewritten, and because it was deleted, there wasn't a way to revert to the previous article. But that's okay.

Me, Bart Versieck, and Robert Douglas Young (RYoung122) come from a group where they document all supercentenarians. The parent site is www.grg.org. Guinness World Records tend to validate the oldest person in the world cases only, so you won't really know who's the second oldest person in the world, since persay, the '70s. Anyways I don't know the specifics of Thomas Peters. Neal 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercentinarians I had to sift through your compaints to wikipedia management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.

First of all, if I make a mthematical error or a mistake on somebody's page. It's an error, that's what it is. Considering the less than thurough ways in which you've been updating pages (you didn't even try to fix the succession boxes) you don't have much room to complain to management. I looked back and realized I made a mistake with Thomas Peters death date. I guess you've never made a mistake in your life. Also, Thomas Peter's didn't have a page before I put it up so when it comes to him at least I made an attemp to bring more information to wikipedia. The mistake about Jeane Klement reaching 120 years 238 days on Oct 17 1995 (not Oct 4 1995) was a mistake I DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED MUSELF!!!! yet you felt the need to complain about it.

Secondly... nice teamwork. Thanks for taking me seriously. Here I am, willing to help organize the information you provided (because even I know that you are the expert in this and not me) and you spit in my face. I apreciate it. Maybe I'll send a letter to your superiors at Guinness since you feel so comfortable representing them in this fasion.

I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized


Mr Who, it looks to me like you're the one who's spitting in my face...and you make far more errors than I do. Let's start with your above message.

1. Misspelled 'supercentenarians' 2. Misspelled 'mathematical' 3. Misspelled 'thorough' 4. Misspelled 'Jeanne' 5. Misspelled 'Calment' 6. Misspelled 'Peters' 7. Misspelled 'attempt' 8. Misspelled 'appreciate' 9. Misspelled 'fashion' 10. Misspelled 'started' 11. Misspelled 'didn't' 12. Forgot the period

I don't think making threats to take this to higher-ups is appropriate or polite in any way or manner, considering you didn't even go to me first about any issue. And both Bart and Neal complained about your editing as well. So, why don't you talk to them first since they brought this to my attention.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Wikipedia is NOT a 'job.' It's an unpaid VOLUNTEER service. If I lay out a framework and you finish it, great. If not, well, it's still not my 'job.' Wikipedia doesn't pay me anything.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midget/Dwarf Actors

I added Tony Cox and Danny Woodburn to the category, but I'm leery of the "Midget" part. Aside from the controversy of the term, it seems somewhat redundant, akin to "Gay and Homosexual Actors". Would you mind if I changed the category to "Actors with Dwarfism"? And yes, Doctor Who is awesome. Jjacobsmeyer 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redundant because the slash means either/or.

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more exact in the header; the category as it is now reads "Midget and Dwarf Actors". I guess I wanted to save space. Plus, the Dwarfism article mentions the fact that the term "midget" usually applied only to those with pituitary dwarfism, a condition that has been greatly reduced in developed nations. There also is precedent for changing the name, based on the "People with Dwarfism" category. Jjacobsmeyer 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should change it but I'd like to discuss this more. Midget isn't always a pajorative term. The artical on Midget say's it's scientific. Plus it has always been my understanding that Midget and Dwarf are two different things. For insatnce, Gary Coleman does not appear to be considered a Dwarf but he is a little person and I would like the category to include him. I personally would not liek to call it "little people actors" so Midget and Dwarf actors sounds best. What say you?--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not identical

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are not identical and the article specifically points this out. --Yamla 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... they look identical.--Dr who1975 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran politicians

Just wanted to let you know I saw your reply here but I reverted it because the discussion is closed and should not be changed. Since the categories have been deleted, I guess there's not much point in beating a dead horse anyway. I just wanted to let you know it didn't go unnoticed, and thank you for taking the time to write it. Kafziel Talk 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I just wanted to say thanks again for the Barnstar of Diligence. Since a few of us were going back and forth with the order, and since it all was rather confusing, I just wanted to get a definitive say on the matter. Cheers! Bridger 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I'm the real Dr Who !  ;) --Dr. Who 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm not communist. I'm extreme right, I'd say almost nazi. I'm in the mood of The Wall. Why Pinko? Cos I'm the chief of Floydians here? Maybe.... Anyway, I'm a fan of John Zorn and Jason Kay/Jamiroquai, not only of Kraftwerk and similar German electro-stuff, in the case you are wondering. Doktor is german.--Dr. Who 04:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I read your userpage. I do not "hate Jews", I do not hate anybody, I love differences, and I respect everyone. cheers, I'm going to bed. Nice to meet you.Dr. Who 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think more "See Also" links are relevant to Goth subculture, please contribute to the discussion on the talk page. --Stormie 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 74.69.147.123 Vandalism

Hi Dr, see WP:AIV. I reported this one already.--Pethr 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, however ip wasn't blocked since the edits were old (I haven't noticed). Anyway see WP:UTM for custom warnings and remember WP:AIV for vandal reporting. Regards.--Pethr 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, blocking is usually used as a last resort to stop people who are vandalizing, since he has stoped yesterday there is not really reason to block him for 31 hours for example because he's not here anyway. He will be blocked once he vandalize article again.--Pethr 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest?

You've created a bunch of "earliest" politicians pages. What is an Earliest serving US senator, for example? That page lists "2005 - present - George M. Leader - Pennsylvania". Are you saying Pennsylvania had no senator before 2005? eaolson 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I now notice the redirect. Again, what do you mean by "earliest"? The word makes no sense in the context you are using it. It appears to be a ranking of senators by age and/or senority, but more than one senator can not be the "oldest," unless they are the same age. eaolson 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! alphachimp 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArborealCrustacean

Why on Earth did you write that on this user's userpage? J Milburn 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note and a reminder... he spoofed his IP into that name to hide the vandalism he;d done. I reported the vandalism, but nobody put a warning anywhere on his user page nor his IP address page.--Dr who1975 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming all of the "United States Senators by seniority" pages

Hi Dro who,

I noticed you've been creating these Senator by seniority pages, but I believe you are using an incorrect naming convention for all of the titles. There should be a space between the word "seniority" and the first opening parenthesis, and there should be a space after a comma dividing dates. For example:

"United States Senators by seniority(1969,1970)" should actually be "United States Senators by seniority (1969, 1970)"

Please use the correct naming scheme when creating new articles, as it's already going to be a pain for me to go move the existing articles.

Also, please add them to the cateogry Category:United States Senators by seniority instead of Category:United States Senate.

Thanks, --CapitalR 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with CapitalR...those pages need to be moved to have a space between the years. It is improper to have no space inbetween them as you have named them, Metros232 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made those change last week. Please try to check things before commenting on them.--Dr who1975 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, just got your message on my talk page about this. I think Metros232 was referring to adding a space in each of the page titles between the years. For example "United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970)" should be "United States Senators by seniority (1969, 1970)". Notice the space between "1969," and "1970". --CapitalR 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is precisely what I mean. Metros232 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just relaized something.... I already made the changes CapitalR suggested a week ago! Did you actually look at the pages before you commented? I realize I may be a little hypocritical here but... please try to check things before commenting on them. Incidentally I admitted to Quadpus that I made a mistake.--Dr who1975 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? No you didn't. There's definitely no space here: United States Senators by seniority (1963,1964), United States Senators by seniority (1967,1968), United States Senators by seniority (1969,1970). Metros232 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... but there was a space between "seniority" and "(" which I (incorecty) thought he was talking about... in any event. 've taken care of it now.--Dr who1975 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you're working on these. My question is, why aren't you using the numbered Congress to which the seniority applies? United States Senators by seniority (101st Congress). --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the divisions are based on the congressional sessions. I think having the years in the title makes the articles more personable and accdessable to lay person. I probably need to mention the session in the opening text of the articles.--Dr who1975 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. But nobody refers to Congresses that way, nor do we -- see Category:110th_United_States_Congress. It really makes more sense to be consistent with not just Wikipedia but with Congress itself, which certainly doesn't use this sort of notation. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Thank you for the nice barnstar barnstar! Herostratus 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census page ratings

Hi Dr. Who, There isn't any type of special process you need to go through before adding an article to the US project and rating it. If someone disagrees with your assessment, we can discuss that- though I doubt that will happen. Right now we are just trying to get all the articles labeled and rated, so go ahead and classify the census articles- I would appreciate your help. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo nui

Whoops. Thanks for catching this. I guess I got a little ahead of myself. --Ali'i 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Congressional proposal

I care ... I don't have any strong improvements to suggest to your proposal, which is why I didn't say anything, but I certainly care about the project in general and your idea in particular. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on the impeachment movement cfd,

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding or not addressing your concerns. — coelacan — 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson edit

Hey there! I thought your recent edit to Mel Gibson was a clear POV-push, but then I noticed you are an established and serious editor, so that caught me by surprise. If you disagree with my revert, please let me know so we can come to a consensus. Actually, I probably would have contacted you pre-revert if I'd looked at your prior contribs first, heh... Anyway, let me know if you think my revert was a mistake and we can talk about it. Thanks! --Jaysweet 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your point, but I think because of WP:BLP, it is important that the WP article not actually say Gibson is an anti-Semite. That is a very serious charge, and in my opinion it is best to leave it up to readers to decide for themselves.
I would be interested if you can find an example of another Wikipedia article that specifically says the person is anti-Semitic, to compare and contrast. I think the threshold for Wikipedia to make that accusation would have to be extremely high... --Jaysweet 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I see your point now... right, one can debate whether spouting anti-Semitic comments during a DUI arrest really makes one an anti-Semite, but it's awfully hard to argue that the statement "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" is not an anti-Semitic statement. heh.... so yeah, I think you do have a point.
I don't like "shows signs of anti-Semitism," because that starts to border on labeling the man, which we have to be careful not to do because of BLP. Maybe in the second paragraph, the one specifically regarding the DUI arrest, the text could be made a little stronger, e.g. "he was abusive to the arresting officers and made a series of anti-Semitic statements, including..."
Be careful though. I dunno if you've been following this article or not, but there's been a lot of discussion about this on the Talk page. :D I wouldn't make any changes regarding the anti-Semitism accusations without justifying yourself there first. --Jaysweet 20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Why Can't AT40 have a succession Box?

Hi there. The reason I removed AT40 succession boxes is because right now I am questioning a few articles that are attributing number-ones to AT40. American Top 40 is just the name of a radio program... for many years the show's data was derived from Billboard magazine, and currently (I believe), the data comes from Mediabase. I'm in a discussion right now to have some articles renamed to properly credit the organization that actually compiles the charts and not the radio show that counts them down. If anything, the succession boxes should probably say "Mediabase number-one single", not "AT40 number-one single". I just wanted to get the naming cleared up first before a bunch of succession boxes got placed all over in song articles. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, if you'd like: Talk:List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2007. - eo 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest serving US governor

Can you clarify whant is meant by Earliest serving US governor? Does it mean at each point of time the living governor who served earlier than any of the other living people who served as governor? RJFJR 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Please do not insult my intelligence, maturity, and make derogatory other names for my ideas as you did in this diff. If you think that it is a bad idea, please just say so instead of getting personal.

Note: I was being completely serious about this as an award, albeit maybe it would be better suited as PUA than a barnstar.  ~Steptrip 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 10999

A tag has been placed on Executive Order 10999, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hatch68 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't keep placeholder pages such as the above or Executive Order 11000. Now you have the order numbers here on your talk page. NawlinWiki 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Hatch 68 lied to me when he said he's leave it up for 5 days. How come you guys didn;t notice Senate Bill 1873?--Dr who1975 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Succession boxes

You said you Oppose getting rid of the rule preventing succession boxes on fiction characters but then you're comments seem to support getting rid of the rule. I think you meant to say support, you may want to go edit your post.--Dr who1975 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you left your computer. I took care of it for you. Sorry if I stepped on your toes here. I agree with all your points about succession boxes.--Dr who1975 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh.. ok. I think I understand your position now. Since you were the one removing the boxes, I assumed you were against the boxes being in the articles. But I see now that you were supporting what's currently at WP:MOS. I was figuring that since succession boxes are virtually everywhere, they was a consensus for them. Hopefully this issue will get worked out in discussion. (And thanks for fixing my !vote. :) --Fang Aili talk 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Got your response. I have a question... I keep seeing thie term "cruft" or "fancruft", I'm fairly familiar with wht cruft means ut can you give me a specific or hypothetical example where this has come up in an argument?--Dr who1975 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's Joey's apartment from today's AfD. The first !vote describes fancruft pretty well: "pointless regurgitation of minutae" that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Fang Aili talk 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadpus... I thougth maybe these two edits were a mistake on your part when we were debating the Impeach G.W. Bush thing but I see now you have it in for me no matter what I do. This is basically an aesthetic change that you reverted (twice!). Beyond that, using the one to two succession box in this manner is something that is in use on a bunch of pages (Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, etc.). It makes the succession box less clunky looking and less repetative. Furthermore, I cannot find a rule that prohibits them from being used this way. In fact, others have reverted your edits on this without my intervention.--Dr who1975 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reverted those changes because I believed them to be a misuse of the 2-to-1, 1-to-2, etc, succession boxes. It might be less repetitive, but it is also makes it less clear. I don't wish to go around making mass changes the way you are doing though, unless there is a consensus, which I might try to build if I have time. Quadpus 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make mass changes without concensus all the time. This is practically an example of it.--Dr who1975 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Quadpus 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromist on succession boxes

I agree there should be a compromise, we're just not supposed to apply a rule in order to show that is broken. You removed the SBs with a summary that includes "vote here." That may be effective, but it goes against WP:POINT. - Peregrine Fisher 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think WP:POINT cna sometimes be misused to stifle debate (not that I would change [[{WP:POINT]]), however, I do want to see an end to this thing. I will not remove any more succession boxes, give me a few hour to see if there is more debate and I will take care of this.--Dr who1975 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. No one bit on my earlier comment, but maybe we can add optional fields to the nav boxes for succession info. - Peregrine Fisher 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes and fancruft

There's this example from the history of Sauron: [1]. "Dark Lord"? Notice how it includes a character who was never more than a name in an unpublished work that never got past its first chapter, and who wasn't a "Dark Lord" on the same scale as either Morgoth or Sauron. "Bearer of the Great Ring" is equally silly. It was as bad as it ever got before you removed the boxes entirely: [2]. A succession box for "Lord of Mordor" when there was only ever one of them? "Lord of Dol Guldur" where there was only ever two of them, and the second one was one of his Nazgûl? Ridiculous.

Have a look at Denethor, and the Stewards of Gondor succession box. It looks valid at first glance, but if you click back you find these extremely brief articles that are nothing but wordier versions of what you find in "The Tale of Years" in the Appendices to Lord of the Rings. Of that entire line, perhaps only 5 of them deserve an article. The others simply aren't worth mentioning. Then there are the array of succession boxes under Aragorn, which is the specific case I had in mind in one of my comments. For most of the articles you can follow, for example, under "Chieftain of the Northern Dunedain" there is literally nothing to say about the person, and the fanboy editors who wrote the articles are forced to mention contemporaneous events in order to pad them out. I don't know what's more annoying: That the articles exist at all, or that I'm OCD enough to fix errors in the damn boxes even as I'm complaining about them. (Someone doesn't understand what is meant by "cadet branch".) The others are all like it.

Neither of Galadriel's succession boxes makes any sense. "Lady of Eregion" is based on a version of her history that may or may not be canonical; in fact Tolkien seems to have never settled on the "right" answer here. "Lady of Lorien" is just as bad -- and the middle occupant of that "lineage" has no succession box at all, which renders the exercise moot. The brief articles for the other two are obviously not extensive enough to stand alone, and cannot be expanded because they already tell everything known about them.

I could go on, if you like. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion about "Succession boxes for fictional characters" ,started by your petission, has been ongoing for a month. No one has contributed in days. Shouldn't it be concluded eventually and the results having some actual effects? User:Dimadick

Re: Barnstarman

Yeah, I was on a Wikibreak during Spring Break, but I posted there as soon as I got your message. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 14:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Happy Chandler

Thank you for your additions to Happy Chandler. Although I have been slacking of late, I had been working on taking this article to GA status. I have no doubt that your edits about Chandler being the most senior senator and last senator from the 30's are true, but if you have a source to cite for this information, would you please include it? It will make my job easier when I get back around to nominating it for GA. Thanks. Acdixon 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying about Chandler. Wonder if that's acceptable in lieu of a cite for GA? Acdixon 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer to help. The main problem I'm running into is that most of the sources I have deal with Chandler politically, but he was also part of some noteworthy incidents as commissioner of baseball, including overseeing its integration, suspending Dodgers manager Leo Durocher, and suspending players who went to the Mexican League. I doubt the article will ever (or probably should ever) pass GA or FA unless I can expand the baseball commissioner section. If you are a baseball fan – or you know one – who might be able to expand this section, I could use the help in that area. Other than that, I've got a business trip coming up where I'll have some down time, and I plan to expand the section regarding Chandler's second term as governor and later political life.
I think I'll post the citation question to the village pump. Acdixon 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Apparently, at least one user thinks this requires a source. See the discussion. If you run across a valid cite, please add it. Otherwise, I'll keep looking. Acdixon 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! You've totally got the wrong impression here. I was just hoping you knew where to find a cite for the info so it wouldn't get challenged in a GA review. It's usually easier for the author of an edit to add the source if they have it. That's all I was asking. I know it was a good faith edit, and I certainly am not trying to remove it. On the contrary, I'm trying to keep it. I'll work on finding the cite myself, but the only reason I care is so it might be able to pass GA one day.
In answer to your question, I've gotten down to the baseball section with my cleanup, and yes, I've got a lot more to do. I haven't worked on it a lot lately, but as I said, I'm planning to shortly. Please don't think me antagonistic. Acdixon 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have cleared up this situation with you. I do appreciate your work and how tedious it can be (kind of like when I was assigning class ratings to WikiProject Kentucky articles), and I certainly hope it won't be removed. I'll continue to search for ways to cite it to the satisfaction of Wikipedia standards. I noticed the articles you mentioned, and it seems to me that sourcing them and sourcing their assertions in other articles (as with Chandler) are almost one in the same.
BTW, you mentioned "compilation" under original research, but the official policy resides at WP:OR, and makes no mention of compilations. Nevertheless, your contention makes sense to me, so I'll seek some more advice from more experienced editors. Acdixon 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. At least one editor at the VP agrees with the both of us that linking to the .gov site you mention above is at least arguably a valid citation. I would have to think an editor would be extremely anal to remove such information since, despite guidelines, probably 90-95% of Wikipedia remains uncited. As far as an offer of help, I'd appreciate anything that improves the article, especially from the baseball section down. I'll also try to remember to let you know when I put it up for GA. I doubt it'll ever pass FA until I get some more images. Acdixon 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

succession boxes

I was presuming the debate was regarding succession boxes in the context of 'writing about fiction'. What do you think isn't clear? In part, the debate discusses the possibility of baning some boxes, but retaining others, and writing a new rule accordingly. If someone had a sensible rule which I felt couldnt be abused to remove useful boxes, I might support it, but I am not convinced that is possible. Sandpiper 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Master

Hi there. Cheers for this - all in the spirit of WP! Sorry I boobed on Utopia, you are of course quite correct. I love it when an article comes together! Peeper 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

I'm sure you're aware of the three revert rule and would caution you agasint breaching it in the Freemasonry article. ALR 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, linking to a book title isn't really using the source. Who knows what the content is? for example, Mackey's debunking of the Taxil hoax was called Devil Worship in France and the content had, AFAIK, very little to do with the title of the book. Believe it or not, though, the link to the verifiability guidelines is WP:Verifiability, and I'm a little concerned that you had to ask someone else to find this for you. MSJapan 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As regards hostility, you made the mistake of forcing an edit on no grounds whatsoever and without discussion, when you apparently didn't even know the ground rules for editing. I'll add that POV vandals do the same thing on articles, and thus it's very hard to AGF in that instance. Basically, you could have handled that a lot better than you did, and the resultant attitudes towards you are the direct consequence of your actions. MSJapan 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry the boldness of my update upset you. That was not my intention. However, seeing as how you have now unapologetically admitted hostility toward me. Please do not post here again.--Dr who1975 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admittance of hostility does not mean they should never post hear again, it just means they should try to be a little nicer :). We could all be a little nicer, however I understand MSJapans frustration. It appears as though your additions were good faith, however the article is a highly controversial article. In these articles while boldness is often needed, caution is more often appropraite to prevent incitation of edit wars, and other undesirable outcomes. The most accepted way to prevent such actions is to post and discuss propsoed controversial changes on the articles talk page before adding them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you asked "what's with the hostility" - your usage, not mine, and there's no admission on my part of anything. Moreover, as you've pointed out a few times on your talk page and other places, you seem to be more inmtersted in getting a "secret word" into the areticle rather than figuring out if there was any merit to the usage first. MSJapan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too immersed, I was trying to discuss it properly but nobody wanted to. I'm done.--Dr who1975 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

You are linking to a book for sale at amazon.com. That in no ways counts as an appropriate reference, and would appear to be cicrumventing WP:EL by including a link to a for sale item in the citations section rather than the external links section. That is why I believe ALR's decision to eb appropriate for removing it. Thank you for reverting yourself after realisation of the three revert rule. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better explanation of why what you added would not seem appropriate from my point of view. There are many, more recent and reliable sources, that state that much of masonic ritualistic information differs between grand lodges, and types of freemasonry. This, being contrasted to an old document from the 1700's purporting to be masonic information is hardly reliable, especially with the changes across freemasonry across districts and grand lodges since the orignial was written. In these situations, more recent citations should be used as opposed to old versions (1700's) of which much has changed. Our goal is accuracy for this project, and citing innaccurate information will only go to discredit/hurt this project more.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan

here you say that MS Japan has been hostile to you and admitted it and therefore his comments are not welcome. Wikipedia is a community of collaboration, and such statements do not help this project. If MSJapan has violated one of wikipedias policies, you are welcome to request the assistance of me or another adminsitrator at administrators notieboard/incidents. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1. It was a request. 2. Guidleines are not rules and are therefore more controversial to use as a basis for complaint on administrators notieboard/incidents. I do think he broke WP:CIVIL but that is a guidline. My preffered outcome would be if MSJapan simply took me seriously as somebody with good faith but he does not seem to be interested in doing that.--Dr who1975 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies if he has not done that. If you feel he continues, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will kindly request that he assume good faith. The article on freemasonry as I have stated before is often targeted by many bad faith edits, and it becomes frustrating and often monotonous to continue to keep this article up. It actually used to be a featured article, a status which it no longer has. Thanks for being civil and understanding as we try to work through this, to me that is the MOST important thing anybody can do on this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

WP:V and WP:CITE should do for starters. Have fun!--Vidkun 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith

Your recent spree has me to beleive that your additions were truly in bad faith. I dont care what you post around, however you have lost my trust in this project. Please do not disrupt this project to make a point thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris... I thought your issue was with citing it? You're issue with me posting the word on a talk page implies bad faith on your part. (i.e. you were not honest when you said your issue was with citing it) In any event I'm done.--Dr who1975 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care if you post it on the mediation page. I really dont care, I however would rather your attempts at making a point not be on my talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and what point was I trying to make?--Dr who1975 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that you believe there to be a conspiracy to hide information here. Information that has been pubslished. It is not possible to prevent information from going out, it is however possible to maintain the highest standards for our articles. Your attempts at throwing words and inform,ation around appear to me to be an attempt to disrupt those editors associated with this article and cause them discomfort for disagreeing with your addition. The fact is, the information is available , that still however does not make it encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... I'm done. I never said any of that. --Dr who1975 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Freemasons

Islam is generally against Freemasonry, and I believe it is banned in most Muslim countries. But, as I said, since the only requirement regarding God in Freemasonry is that you believe in a supreme being, Muslims are free to become Masons, and there certainly are some. That said, it is rare. As for a "Muslim Freemason group", there is only one Freemasonry, to which all men who are believers in a supreme being and who are of good character, sound judgement, strict morals, free by birth and of mature age are free to join. There are several "appendant bodies" which one must be a Mason to join, but these are not considered Freemasonry proper. Many of these take aspects of certain religions or cultures, and incorporate them. However, no one would consider these groups to be connected in any way with the religions they take terms or symbolism from. The Shriners in fact include Muslim symbolism. For instance, where Masons meet as a Lodge, Shriners meet as a Mosque. But, of course, as I said, this is really nothing to do with Islam. Another appendant body (a much smaller one) is called the Order of Quetzalcoatl which takes imagery from Aztec religion. But again, this should not be considered to have anything to do with Aztec religion itself.

I wrote the above before reading your second message, so let me clarify. Aside from the York Rite, which requires one to be a Christian, there are no sub-faith groups of Freemasonry, nor are any of the appendant bodies actually considered to be part of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is not a religion, and it does not have any bodies "organized by religions" as you put it. It is not connected to any church, or any other religious group by any formal (or even informal) ties. Even the York Rite requirement of being a Christian is somewhat vague, and mostly historical (some have even claimed that one only need to profess to "protect Christianity" and not actually believe in it, and that is enough—although that is not likely to be a commonly-held understanding of the requirement). Hope that helps. Lexicon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you know

I was checking out a WP:AN3RR report and declined to block because you reverted yourself. One of your edit summaries gave me the impression that you thought you could revert different people up to 3 times each. Actually, the rule applies to any three reverts on a page during 24 hours. So if three different people make three completely different edits, and you revert each, then that's the limit; if you revert one more you'll be blocked, even if it's yet another completely different revert. Anyway, if you're not satisfied with the discussion on the article talk page, consider dispute resolution. Later, ··coelacan 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Freemasonry

I am polling all of the named members of this Mediation Request. From a review of your discussion on the Mediation page it sounds as if the dispute has been resolved prior to mediation, is this a safe assumption? (Note: Please respond here, I'll be watching.) - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_24#Template:Fb-spoiler

The rule is that articles are eligible for deletion once 7 days has passed. User:Zorglbot automatically moves those sections from current to old. The debates can then be closed. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MisterSaxon.jpg

There are problems with this image:

  1. it's a duplicate of Image:SoundOfDrums.png
  2. it's obviously just a picture of John Simm grinning at the camera

The second point is important. A free picture of John Simm grinning could be obtained. To say that this is "Mr Saxon" is simply to state that he's a fictional character. This is just John Simm grinning at the camera so it cannot conform to the non-free content criteria. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Saxon and Mr. Hand

In response to your comment on my talk page: Fair enough. I saw the discussion and got interested enough to get involved. I'm simply not convinced that the image of an actor is a sufficient replacement for an image of a character. Based on other discussions I've seen, I think the jury is still out. It would be nice to see a policy on this (and several other "gray area" fair use questions).

As for "Mister Hand" I get that moniker from Dark City. It's also a character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. -- MisterHand 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

You have apparently taken great issue with me editing this article. At least that is the impression I get considering your edit summaries following my edits. First of all, assume good faith. If I or anyone else missed something, just fix the problems. Past that, my deepest apologies for not fixing the link to the sub heading as it didn't occur to me. Although, also note that had it been done right the first time, I wouldn't have to correct it, but you don't see me putting that in my edit summary do you? As for your mocking me with my own edit summary regarding genre, I didn't put Pop punk there. I simply removed the addition of "Emocore" or "Emo" from the previous edit and correct a capitalization issue that I noticed while there. Regardless, this band (as much as I love them) is a pain in the ass when it comes to what genre they are. See the article talk page for details. Regards, LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thursdays

I am sorry I offended you. I thought you were on a delete rampage and thought 'who cares' was a bizarre edit summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Harrison (talk • contribs)

Thanks.--Dr who1975 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh.

I dunno, I don't usually respond to trolls, so apparently I accurately pegged you as one.

All I did was block someone; a misconfigured squid cache server did the rest. The main site didn't realize that server was a cache server, so it was treating its cache edits as coming from users, rather than the internal system. When I blocked someone, the IP of the cache server showed up on auto-block - and everyone whose edits were being processed by that server was autoblocked.

Of course, you could have checked the noticeboards, or asked a tech person, since I'm not entirely sure my explanation is accurate. But if you just want to sling insults at someone who hasn't really been working on wikipedia heavily since you asked that question, go for it. --Golbez 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not merely express frustration, you insulted my work here. An apology will not be forthcoming. I don't mind people asking questions about an action I made, which by the way was not a mistake; I do mind them getting huffy when I don't respond, even though my activity on Wikipedia has been drastically reduced in the time period that you asked the question. You seem to have a problem with me personally, though I don't recall ever interacting with you specifically. I did not make a mistake; I made a valid block, and the Mediawiki software suffered from a configuration issue that caused vast amounts of people to be autoblocked. At least two other admins got hit with the same issue.
If you have a problem with me, take it to WP:RFC please. And as for your request for an explanation, I suggest you look three paragraphs up. --Golbez 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the insult; saying how "administrator-like" it was of me to not respond to you in a timely fashion was. There's a long line between 'ignoring' and 'not answered yet'; the world does not revolve around you. So, you got your explanation (which apparently you haven't seen yet) and I explained what I found insulting; it wasn't your question, it was your snark after 3 days. You got your explanation, we traded barbs, and you tried to get me de-adminned because I called you a name; can we move on with our lives now? --Golbez 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Golbez

Hi Dr who1975. I do apologise for barging in, but I wanted to suggest that you leave Golbez alone. He has explained what happened (there was a technical glitch which was nothing to do with him) and I think if you have any lingering bad feeling about it you should either take the matter forward in another forum or else (preferably) let go of it and move on. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop punk started in 1970s, not 1990s

The pop punk genre started in the 1970s, not the 1990s. True, it's not the same sound in many cases, but that's pretty much the situation with any music genre; it evolves over time. Spylab 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gob's myspace lists the genre first as "pop punk". That a good enough reference?- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjnelson (talk • contribs)

  • There is no reference in the pop punk article specifically proving when the term pop punk was first used, but it has said for a long time that the term has been used at least retroactively to describe 1970s bands that played a mix of pop music and punk rock. I have a hunch that the term pop punk was actually used by some writers in the 1970s, but even if the term wasn't widely used at that time, that does not negate the fact that some 1970s bands are now considered pop punk. See the freakbeat and northern soul articles for other music genres that were labelled retroactively. Spylab 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the band makes the myspace themselves, I'd say it's a fine reference. You're just trying to be difficult.Chris Nelson 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether some people feel insulted that bands such as Buzzcocks, Ramones, or The Jam are labeled pop punk is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those bands played (and in the case of Buzzcocks, still play) music that definitely fits the description of pop punk. I don't know much about Tenpole Tudor, and that article has not attracted my attention. The Damned started out as garage rock-style hard punk, went through a goth stage and then combined both styles. I don't think they have played enough pop music-influenced punk to be labelled pop punk. Everything I've heard from Siouxsie & the Banshees and Bauhaus seems to fit under punk(ish), new wave and goth. The question "Where does punk end and pop punk begin?" is a good one, and applies to almost every genre in the history of music. However, pop punk definitely started much earlier than the worldwide chart-topping hits of the 1990s by California bands. Spylab 02:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box two and one and one to one and three

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Succession box two and one and one to one and three, by Fuzzy510, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Succession box two and one and one to one and three is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Succession box two and one and one to one and three, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Succession box two and one and one to one and three itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


June 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who spoiler

Hi. Thanks for posting the report on AIV, but when I looked at the contributions of the reported user I wasn't exactly sure why it was a spolier (I don't watch it myself). I wonder if you could explain to me exactly why it is a spoiler and then I will be happy to take whatever action is required (including blocking). Cheers TigerShark 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McGann

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Instead of "series lead" I should've written "television lead". Mark H Wilkinson 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hurndall

Woops! Didn't see you'd said anything. I always just click "recent changes". Heh. Sorry.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transferred from the Dr Who WP talk page

Edward Tudor-Pole

I'm just a dumb American so I had no where else to turn but to you guys for help. I have heard that Edward Tudor-Pole (who was never in Doctor Who... sorry) is related to the Tudor royal family. Obviously this is either an indirect relation (i.e. the Pole Family changed it's name to Tudor-Pole after some guy married a Tudor cousin) or the relation is through a bastard child. I can't find a citable source on this in google. Clearly, there seems to be a Tudor Pole family that is related to Henry VIII ( regardless of whether Ed is one of those Tudor-Poles or not) but I can't prove that either. Can anyone give me any help with this. Thanks.--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God knows how you ended up here, but never mind! Ed, I believe, only claimed a relationship to the Tudor Poles (or it was claimed for him) - no doubt to jazz up his profile. This was probably while he was running round in Armour in the "Swords of a Thousand Men" video. This was 1981 though and I (stupidly) never kept my back copies of Smash Hits. Totnesmartin 09:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on

There is indeed objection to your proposed merge, particularly the most recent two comments. Please wait until there's some sort of consensus on what to do before going ahead with a change as drastic as this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expaling myself

Taking the tags off of the article does not "end the discussion" by any means :)! It just takes the tags off the article. Merging is impossible - it's not an option, you won't achieve it (overly large article + overly large article + overly large article = disaster). So I removed the merge tags. That's all. Discussions about the future of categories and articles can happen on WikiProject page without necessary tagging, and casual editors (outside the project) are not going to have enough understanding of Wikipedia functions to be useful in the discussion at all.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MisterSaxon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MisterSaxon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Overuling

Regarding the doctor who lists merge discussion. I'm well aware nobody overules anyone else... please don't take my comments out of context.--Dr who1975 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please refrain from using terminology such as "overule." What you did was reverting it. This may seem like quibbling, but it seems to me that saying you "overuled" someone else is unnecessarily inflammatory. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apreciate your advice... I didn't mean it in an inflamatory way. Please assume good faith.--Dr who1975 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize if I seemed overly rude to you. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oldest Members of House of Representatives

Sorry for delay in Response-health reasons. I have looked at your body of work on wikipedia. Find it interesting as well. Would like some pointer on the pages I have created on website.

--Thomas 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Questions

1. I read it on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha. For instance, here's Daphne Ashbrook's page (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Daphne_Ashbrook)

2. I'm sorry to tell you that I can't help with Edward Tudor-Pole. To be honest, I never even heard of him until I read your message. Sorry, I couldn't be of any more help. GusF 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Chicken reference

Thanks much!! I always enjoy getting those subtle references that might not be clear on the first go-round! That's one of the joys of Wiki - something missed by one is picked up by others! :) SkierRMH 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT and talkpages

Hi, just to let you know that while not all of WP:NOT applies to talkpages, one element of it applies exclusively to talkpages. It means that any threads not specifically geared towards improving the associated article or page aren't allowed, and WP:TALK mandates the deletion of such threads: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". Thanks for you efforts, though!--Rambutan (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really! Comments like this are speculation about what happens in the episodes rather than how the article could be improved.--Rambutan (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chandler

Thanks for the catch; pure carelessness on my part, I suppose. Acdixon 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Vitter

Do some research and find a source for your information. See WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

 ∴ Therefore  talk   20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not questioning the truth of your statement. I'll patiently await (that is meant mirthfully) your citation. Note, I'm the second editor to remove.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the fact isn't obvious -- each state has different methods for appointing replacements, not always by the state executive. But I do know that your statement is true. There should be plenty of sources that describe this and make the statement that one of the motivations for support is to avoid upsetting the balance of power in the Senate.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the fact tag is for editors to mark statements that other editors have made. It isn't designed to get around the WP:V rules. But I do understand if you are using it as a temporary placeholder.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my state, Oregon, along with Wisconsin, has not adopted gubernatorial appointments to fill vacancies. The office stays vacant until a special election. Massachusetts and Alaska recently changed their policies and no longer have the state executive do the appointments. Along with other state inconsistencies, this is the motive behind a Constitutional Amendment to make this consistent.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

91.104.204.121

Thank you for making a report about 91.104.204.121 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. TigerShark 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Vitter redux

Besides Hannity, Christian Conservatives for Reform or that LA state GOP committee member? Not many. My point isn't that it isn't accurate to say "accurate" but more that the sources listed don't support it. Let the text of that section (which if you notice from the talk page, I defended from deletion from another editor) speak for itself. We don't need to make the irony explicit for the reader and, cuz of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, shouldn't.  ∴ Therefore  talk   03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a paragraph to the Reaction section. It says the same thing you were saying except that it is a) sourced and b) properly framed as coming from a source.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk on user page

I noticed that you added a comment to User:TMC1982‎ instead of User Talk:TMC1982‎. Others seem to have done the same, though. --GargoyleMT 14:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession Boxes

WP:SBS is currently in the process of removing restrictive succession template designs such as those I have noted that you've created in the past few months. We are in no way blaming you for creating them because we strongly believe that it was done in the best intents, however, I will direct you to Template:s-start/doc for the current usages and rules for succession boxes where you will find the very easy and more flexible succession box series that is currently in use across Wikipedia. In it, look for the rows option which will fix the reason that you have created some of the succession box templates in the first place. In the coming days, I will clean up the seven or so articles currently using your "succession box x by x" templates and propose them for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please reply back to my talk page of the project talk page at WT:SBS. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know

I didn't know the rule about userpages and free use images. Thank you for enlightening me and removing the image. I did not mean to be in violation of copyright law. >-{ Brandonrush }-<

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need all sorts of volunteers. Online stuff or in-person. Technical matters, setting up the actual event, website things, working at the event. Anything you can think of, we probably need it. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivalry

I had created "The Rivalry" page to solve the previous revert wars as to whether the page should be called the Lehigh-Lafayette game or the Lafayette-Lehigh game. How will your recent "improvement" prevent that issue from recurring? Thanks GCW50 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response, but you didn't answer the point I raised. Are you now taking responsibility to monitor and correct any changes by Lafayette fans who want to refer it as the Lafayette-Lehigh? We had such a revert war originally before "The Rivalry". So as long as you're now taking on the responsibility of monitoring the site to prevent such changes, I'm fine with it. BTW, I went to Lehigh and my brother went to Lafayette, so I know that when not using "The Rivalry" term, each college always places its own name first. GCW50 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to have forgotten to update the Army-Navy game page as well as many others in the college rivalry category. GCW50 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report on 201.151.123.9

I didn't act against the address because one edit was made from there in the preceding week, which was two days before your report. It hasn't made any edits since then. That doesn't qualify as "active" in my book, so no action is warranted at AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual pervert?

I'm not sure if speculations or inferences based on a fictional character are allowed, but the sexual pervert thing is so weird? Could you discuss it on Talk:Gregory House? I thought it was vandalism, but I'm not sure about your intent. mirageinred 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. By the way, an anonymous editor deleted your edit. I thought you would like to know if you wanted to add it back. mirageinred 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

craig

there was no citation for your speculation that he "technically" could change his mind again. unless you own a crystal ball, uncited speculation about the future gets removed, as another editor so kindly did already. cheers. Anastrophe 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the House M. D. Article...

just curious...why did you remove the link to the "list of house episode" in the plot section of the house article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivineBaboon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's Master Service Award

Please read SandyGeorgia's comments here; she describes a more polite, less disruptive way you could have gone about bringing this "requirements" nonsense to the awarder's attention without necessarily messing up her user subpage. Sandy's one of the classiest editors involved in this project; we could all take a few queues on her.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, you also might be interested in the nomination to delete the award in quesiton.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is

I never awarded nor have I ever had any "service" barnstars awarded to me (nor do I want them). If you are implying that I'm disgruntled because I've had them removed from my user page, then that would be an incorrect assumption. I have put the "master editor" service award up for deletion because I fear it is elitist and awards people for entirely the wrong reasons: number of edit counts and time on the project. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was your point: "You just want to maintain your groups monopoly on Barnstars. You are elitist". Seriously, grow up. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House

Because the "Recurring character" list isn't a running list of what doctors remain. You're completely confused buddy. The other two doctors have virtually no role and aren't "recurring" characters per se, they're just characters that happen to appear in more than one episode; if you want to be consistent on that, you can add the dozens of characters that have done that to the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' know what you're talking about the episode aired a week ago...three doctors were eliminated, and they had virtually zero lines, and simply "appeared" in the episode. There's no point in putting information on Wikipedia that is certain to be deleted by the end of the season; you really think you're going to want a list on the main page 2nd paragraph with listings about "Jody" on them? That's simply silly.Mooshimanx 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not a running tally of the doctors in this fellowship program, and I already know who is being added full-time, and I certainly didn't cut them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshimanx (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we consider a separate page for "characters" of the show? Talking realistically, I would imagine that only Stacy, Tritter and Vogler are true "recurring" characters with total story arcs affected by their prescence? Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Lost? Considering that very few characters appear in more than one episode other than the main six, it wouldn't that grand of an undertaking.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr_who1975&oldid=165244149"