User talk:Chuckiesdad/Archive 1

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Maus

Look at page 13 of the first book. Most characters with as small parts as Lucia look just like everybody else. 64.81.59.139 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. Here's my train of thought: the edit was anonymous, there was no edit summary, no reference cited, and the topic was large breasts. My note on the editor's talk page was a request to cite sources. You are welcome to revise the article if I'm in error about the content. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Unpleasantries have now been changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by LautaroSosa (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome, and please see my post on your Talk page. Chuckiesdad (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft Dodger

I was the person that edited the "Draft Dodger" entry because the entire article is fraught with inaccuracies. I provided a valid citation for the fact that it is a myth that minorities were over represented in relation in either those that served in Vietnam or those killed. Even the Washington Post did an article on this subject when the Vietnam Memorial (The Wall) was dedicated. Very little in the article is true and nothing has a valid citation so why do you not just take down the entire entry? As a Vietnam era Draftee that attended OCS as a "US" and went to Vietnam as a very young 2LT and extended to come home a mature CPT, I have researched this subject. I take it as a personal affront that someone would misrepresented the facts and pass it off as true. -- Just take down the entire page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk • contribs) 08:17, Nov 9, 2008 (UTC)

• Good question. This is a contentious article, and there is extensive discussion on the Talk page on several aspects of it. That Talk page is the best forum for raising issues like yours, and by posting your comments there, you should be able to draw the attention of others who have an interest in the topic (pro or con). Unfortunately, working out these discussions in the main body of the article instead of the Talk page makes it confusing to the Wikipedia reader. You can also raise the lack of references there as well, or make the citations yourself if you like. I make no judgements about your content, just the forum for arriving at consensus (article vs: talk page). Regarding deletion, once an article is created, it takes community consensus and some solid reasons to remove it, see WP:DELETE. Best regards, and thanks for your contributions - Chuckiesdad (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if your research has included fleeing to Canada or being imprisoned by the US military, which some of the other contributors have experienced. I personally feel that some of your cites would be valuable additions to the article if you would incorporate them in a scholarly fashion, but simply deleting everything you don't agree with will not stick. It is too easy for others to simply revert your edits. As Chuckiesdad says, the discussion page is the place for working out conflicts, and it is possible for conflicting views to coexist in the article if they are presented in a dispassionate way. It would be a good idea to register a cognomen too, as "98.169.199.18" is not going to bring your contributions any recognition. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Best regards, Húsönd 10:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, I just happened to catch it during R/C patrol. Chuckiesdad (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Process question

I believe that blatant, obvious vandalism should be reverted whether it's on an article page or the article's talk page. What that user was doing was obviously vandalism and I would revert and warn the user. Hope this helps! --DA Skunk - (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Every case is unique. In this situation, I have no personal interest in the articles in question, and wasn't watching them at all. The user asked on my talk page to look into it, I checked out the IP that he told me about, it passed the WP:DUCK test, and so I blocked it. It was plainly clear this was the same user. While cleaning up, I noticed the a new IP in the same basic range (it was in the same /20 CIDR range) doing the same edits. A /20 only covers 4000 IP addresses (a VERY small range). Trust me, two people within that small of an IP range don't randomly start doing the exact same edits to the same articles. After years of doing this sort of work, you learn how to interpret a combination of behavioral and techincal information to understand what is going on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grouchstink. I started this as a way of sicking penis oh my David your breaking my pussy slowing this guy down. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)