User talk:PAVA11
This is the user talk page for Grsz11, where you can send messages and comments.
Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will reply to messages left here on here unless you request I reply on your talk page.
Also note, I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than 21 days will be sent to the archives.
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAVA11. |
|
|
April 2008
Thanks for the head-up
Thanks for the heads-up. Your first reference answered my question.
I wrote to the canvasser. He is unrepentant.
I don't know what to do. I've never filed a request for comment. I think I might have to.
But, thanks for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is a last resort
Blocking should be used as a last resort, not the first. Wikipedia has tons of rules, and most new users end up breaking one or two of them, but we definitely do not need to block every newbie who appears to break a rule. I disapprove of you clamoring to block User:Taostiger. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright, take 382
I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality board
People do check, myself included, but theres only so many edits you can make in a day. It's a newer board too, so not as many have it watched. Add in that those can be the harder nuts to crack problem wise... it will be a bit slower than others. Lawrence § t/e 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh it's really no big deal. I forgot I even had that there. Thanks though. Grsz11 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Pittsburgh Arenas
I recently did an overhaul on the PNC Park article, if you want to look over it and see if there is anything that you feel is missing or needs to be changed, I would appreciate it if you could either change it or leave me a message on my talk page. I put it up for peer review so hopefully it can be elevated to a Good Article soon, so I can move onto Heinz Field, which needs the same treatment. I did a revision of the New Pittsburgh Arena, but there's really not much to be added yet. If there are any other Pittsburgh fans who you think could help out too, let me know. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Povertyneck Hillbillies
Just dropping you a line to let you know that I'm rewriting the article on the Povertyneck Hillbillies. I'm finding multiple reliable sources which seem to be sufficient to meet at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. (That, and I really liked "Mr. Right Now", so I'm especially willing to do some WP:HEY work here.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. As long as the article asserts notability, which it didn't previously. In a brief search I had done, I could only find detailed information (passing #1) from the Post-Gazette, and other local sources. Thanks for the work. Grsz11 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've rewritten the article. It still could use a few more sources, but I think I've taken care of any notability concerns (being the official band of the Pittsburgh Steelers, for one). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] - Did you see George_Faulkner#References? And how exactly is notability not asserted? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't say how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller. Be careful when you undo edits, as you restored peacock terms that I had removed. Grsz11 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...I wish I was Yomangan. "was one of the most important" (if sourced, which it is) "say[s] how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller" (which you ask for...CSD only asks that it be said he was a cool dude that's worth talking about). So I'm not sure what you're suggesting. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Goaltender
My bad I totally was just copying and pasting from the Ottawa article to avoid having to retype everything. On the Pittsburgh article it should be Fleury as he was the goalie playing for Pittsburgh. On the Ottawa article it would be Gerber as he was the goalie who got the decision in Ottawa. Albeit not the win as he would have hoped. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL
Admittedly the variations section in this article was a mess, and probably best removed. Still, though lol is most often the variation used, lollerskates, roflcopter, and similar have become pretty popular and widespread in the online gaming community(which is a pretty gigantic community), and have the same meaning. Words like roflcopter redirect to "lol", but no mention of the word(or the rather popular flash game associated with it) is made on the page. It's awkward. By the way, I didn't make up lolocaust or lollercaust. It produces thousands of search results on google, and is defined 11 times on Urbandictionary.com as lolocaust, and 2 times as lollercaust. So instead of following me around and deleting my contributions, please try to work that stuff into the article as you see fit next time. By the way, how can you be a democrat and a libertarian? Lollercaust. thezirk (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon me, this is the free encyclopedia, is it not? Grsz11 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Pitt WikiProject
|
As a current or past contributor to a Pitt-related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Pittsburgh and the Pitt Panthers. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~ |
ONIH's retirement
Yep, he's thrown in the towel & has thrown a few profane 'edit summaries' around too. Very disappointing behaviour, on his part. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We should get this back up to Good Article status; it was at one point, but has since been removed. The article was recently protected from annonomous users, which should help us some. Oakland Raiders is currently a good article, we can use it for reference. I have started a draft in my sandbox. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to help in any way you can, there is a to do list at the bottom of the page. Any suggestions would be welcome, I have no doubt that if we work together we can accomplish this fairly quickly. Blackngold29 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Malone
I removed the A from Malone at the varies articles, 'cause the Penguins are awaiting the Conference Semi-Finals. As a result, we're not certain of Roberts status until that series begins. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:At 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season for now; I've removed both Sydor & Malone from the 'alternate captains' section in the Infobox. I suppose, we won't be certain of how the Penguins will handle Malone & Sydor (whom as you've pointed out, wore the A's for months, while Roberts was sidelined) until the playoffs have ended (thus they'll have their 'official team photo'). For example, the Montreal Canadiens in '85-86 had Captain Bob Gainey; alternate captains Larry Robinson & Mario Tremblay. Tremblay missed the latter half of that season (he retired after the season) due to back problems & Mats Naslund filled-in as alternate captain. The official team photo (after the playoffs) had Gainey (of course) wearing his C; Larry Robinson, Mario Tremblay and Mats Naslund each wearing an A. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm no longer certain of the Penguins situation. If you feel Malone & Sydor should be re-inserted as 'alternate captains'? I'll do the honors. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, Wikipedians seem to have a terrible and endemic habit of writing decontextualized articles that fail to really elucidate a topic. In absence of a complete rewrite of Jeremiah Wright (which is on my list of things to do in vein of Trinity United Church of Christ), the link to Black sermonic tradition provides at least some important background knowledge to readers. Ewenss (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the link you placed on Jeremiah Wright is inappropriate in style and placement. In addition, this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion - bring it up on the article's talk page. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok
I don't want to have a protracted discussion with you about this. After staying of the Wiki for several days, I returned to steadfastly avoid any encounters with you. I had taken evey page that you edit off my watch lists and have made a point to avoid you. You complained that you were being stalked by me. This [2] Would say that at the very least, you are following me. I'd prefer to disengage completey, as my experience on the project has been made poorer for having known you. You seem to be a bright enough fellow, and I rather imagine that you might be intrested in administrative responsibilities on day. Guess what I'm saying is that I would appreciate it if you would find some other corner of this massive project in which to entertain yourself.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- So wait, you're telling me I can't participate in an RfA, one of only five at the time throughout the whole project, if you did first? Grsz11 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. One time of voting for an admin. nom. of an editor that you might not ever have interacted with, and finding a comment by me that you felt moved by the Spirit to comment on might be a coincidence. I devoutly hope that that will be our last interaction and my last coincidental encounter with you, and that you likewise will now remove my contribution list from the list of things that you watch,as well as my talkpage, and if it is not too much to ask, not develop any ""new found"" interest in any other subject that I might choose to edit.I will definitely do the same. It's a big project. If you goal is to create an encyclopedia, then this will make certain sense. Nothing good can come from further interaction between us on this project. Happy editing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet you keep commenting. And just a note, you can't watch a contributions page. I don't even know why you're making such a fuss about things. We originally worked together towards consensus on some things, until you started attacking me. Grsztalk 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
David McCullough
Hey, I appreciate the edits, but just to warn you: I am working my way down going chronologically so don't waste too much time formatting the things at the bottom. I'll probably be changing it again when I get there anyway. One thing that I can't find a ref for that's in the article right now is that his first job after Yale was at Time magazine, if you can find one let me know. Most of the info is good, but I like to use as many sources as I can. Thanks! Blackngold29 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, just spotted it reading through (I started at the bottom for some reason). Grsztalk 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished the first few paragrahs, you are welcome to proof-read them. I'll get a peer review eventually, but it couldn't hurt! Thanks for the link change a few days ago, it was more what I was looking for. Blackngold29 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggest you self-revert.
This edit [3] is your 5th revert in the last 24 hours. On the merits, I don't care whether Wikipedia says Obama was a civil rights lawyer. He calls himself that and it doesn't bother me. But we have a RS noting that it was not all civil rights work and our recounting of his work in this period ought not misrepresent that he always represented the small guy against the powerful, which is the impression Obama wants to convey by his self description and which the examples you leave in the article don't challenge. NPOV requires that we don't support his spin, but report other POV in RS. In any case, if you want to revert please self-revert now and wait until it will only be your third revert in 24 hours (when this one[4] ages over 24 hr). Thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, do we count vandalism towards 3RR now? It's funny that you mention this to me: don't I see 3 reverts from 12:41 to 12:44. Grsztalk 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Too late to self-revert, and I won't make an issue of it this time. Just try to obey the speed limit in the future. The revert you identify doesn't appear to qualify as rvv. You undid a rather juvenile edit and I agree with your doing so, but it's still just a content dispute edit and counts towards 3RR. Nor was I counting consecutive edits as more than one revert (they don't - 12:41 to 12:44 counts as ONE revert; see the end of the "What is a revert?" section in WP:3RR). Nor did you violate 3RR by just one revert. Your 4RR violation is 22 April 15:39, 15:52, 23:17; 23 April 06:27, 13:10. Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I have to concur with Andy. I see four reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Andy's not without fault either, but this is a violation of 3RR, so I've blocked you for 12 hours. Consider this a short shock from the proverbial electric fence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
PAVA11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Five minutes passed between my breaking-edit, and a mass revert by User:Dachannien. The same amount of time was enough for another editor to avoid violating. I didn't make a fuss then because I thought it would be ignored, but if I had the chance, I would have self-reverted. Grsztalk 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
reason — agree with JR — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dachannien's edit is an example of why you didn't need to make that fourth revert: other editors are around and can help, as I tried to tell you on my talk page. I'm not sure what you mean about Andy in the same amount of time — you may not have noticed that I blocked him for edit warring just a few days back, and today I've given him a stern warning about his failure to discuss his edits on the talk page. I think the block is justified, but I'll leave the unblock template up so another admin can review the block. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Problem user
Yeah, he seems like a hot head. I've dealt with other users like this, too, so I'm somewhat prepared. But if he acts up and starts warring, we report him and hopefully it will be resolved - and done with. I've used my 3RR on the page for today, so no more editing for me (at least there). Thanks for you help! My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please let me know what you think of the edits I'm making. On that talk page
or here. Thanks, Grsztalk 02:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - I also think we need to hound him on 3RR. Grsztalk 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Hounding" people is not necessary, productive, or in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsztalk 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying -- glad to see that was the case. Unfortunately we do get people who try to bludgeon their opposite number with policy. Carry on... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsztalk 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Hounding" people is not necessary, productive, or in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:A question on attacks
No that doesn't classify as a personal attack. Its a bit of a blunt criticism. Sometimes that type of criticism is tough to take and at times a little on the snark side but it is not scruntinizable under WP:NPA.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Draft
Well, couldn't hurt to have a back-up for Willie, to bring on for later downs. I don't know a lot about him, is he more of a fast guy or a Bus? Blackngold29 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Steelers2008DraftPicks It's official now! lol Blackngold29 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, a lineman probably should've been first. It won't be worth paying Ben all that $$ if he gets the snot beat out of him every week. I'm sure they'll pick up one of each before the draft is over. I suppose a trade is possible too, but it would be a suprise coming from the Steelers. Blackngold29 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seems they knew what they were doing. That quarterback will be good, but he'll take a few years. I'm still waiting for our Offensive linemen, I bet he's next. Blackngold29 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, a lineman probably should've been first. It won't be worth paying Ben all that $$ if he gets the snot beat out of him every week. I'm sure they'll pick up one of each before the draft is over. I suppose a trade is possible too, but it would be a suprise coming from the Steelers. Blackngold29 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Links
I disagree. We don't have links in each section for the positions. Also the 2007 NFL Draft article just has the universities linked once in the entire article, instead of once each section. -- Tocino 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty annoying when there are repetitive links. We are following precedent here. --Tocino 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright
I haven't looked at that page (or any of the Obama-related pages) since last night. I'm finishing up an AfD nomination right now, but I'll take a look at Jeremiah Wright in a bit and let you know what I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there was POV-pushing and BLP issues there, and in my editorial judgment you were right to revert. However, there's a bit of a grey area, and some editors might think that your reversions were inappropriate. Specifically, some folks might consider the New Republic article to be a reliable source, in which case the appropriate action would have been to cut everything except that bit, rather than revert all. Since there is that little bit of ambiguity, it's probably a good idea to hold off on reverting on that page for the next 22 hours or so. If the material is re-added, I personally wouldn't object to a reversion (I might well revert it myself), but there are enough editors watching that article that you don't need to fight it off by yourself. And sometimes it's good to avoid the appearance of a 3RR violation, even if it's technically defensible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction
A change should be made to the introduction of the article, Trinity United Church of Christ. It states that the church is predominately Black, whereas it is actually exclusively Black. Predominately implies that the majority of members, but in reality if you are not Black you cannot become a member of that congregation. To verify you are welcome to go to their website as well as find the information on CNN. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk • contribs)
- Ha, if you can bother to find a source that proves this, you go ahead and add it. Grsztalk 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That one is easy, it actually says it on the TUCC website.