User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Yesterday, I was and today I'm Verizon changed my IP address, again. No need to post welcome messages—I've been here for years. -- (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to remain an ip, can u ask Verizon to give you a static ip? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I will ask them and I'll let you know what they said. -- (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox: Keep The Vatican Splendors[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. Google searches yield plenty of hits (82,800 or 35,900 or 7,860 depending), indicating notability. The exhibit set attendance records in at least one of the cities it toured. The article has a start on being well-referenced. It admittedly needs work to minimize the tourist brochure/PR prose (which I will start on soon), but it contains information I never knew, e.g., Italian law prohibits historic art pieces being outside Italy for more than 12 months at a time; some of the objects exhibited had never been out of Italy before; some of the exhibit items are not even on display in Rome when they're in Rome, etc. -- (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes: After the article is saved, it needs to be renamed Vatican Splendors, without the, definite article. A little research shows the exhibit has been around since 2007–2008 and has appeared in Cleveland, St. Paul, St. Petersburg, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Ft. Lauderdale in the USA. It is now apparently exhibiting in Sao Paulo, Brazil. No exhibit containing the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul, some Giottos, some Berninis, a Guercino and the Mandolin of Odessa Mandylion of Edessa could be described as minor. Along with the press releases of the exhibitor (Evergreen) and info from the website, there is a 160 page catalogue/guide to the exhibit available from booksellers listed at There are also very likely newspaper articles about the exhibit from the visited cities (the Cleveland Plain Dealer website shows 15 mentions of VS). -- (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


You've got nothing to apologize to me for. On the contrary, I thank you for your support. From the looks of it, I might have been a vote or two away a topic ban so your vote certainly helped me. Best Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, B, and see you around. -- (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


I reverted your edit because you removed the name of the author of the reference. The names of the authors of the other references are listed, so why remove? Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have added the name back and left everything else as I had it. My edit did a lot more than remove Noble's name and your edit undid all of it. I replaced Noble's name with because I thought more people would have heard of Ian Paisley than Noble. The Fundamentals is linked, Grattan is linked and I almost linked Paisley. I have nothing personal against Noble. -- (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Retreat Wikibreak[edit]

Greetings! Thanks for your help thus far on Bruno Lanteri! I'll be going on silent retreat for February, and I will offer it in part for you and your wife, that you may receive the graces you need. Of course, I will pause my work on Wikipedia until March, effective now. See you then! Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul. I will work on Venerable Bruno while you're on break. We are keeping you in our prayers. We really appreciate your prayers for us. Have a fruitful retreat. Praise Him! -- (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, how are you doing? I was afraid your IP might have changed again... Had a great retreat, now another month out, and still unpacking the experience... it was intense! I hope to take a look at where to go next with the Lanteri article soon. Hope you're well! Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed, Brother Paul, because I haven't done squat on Venerable Lanteri's article since you started your retreat. I'm happy to hear you had a great, intense retreat (and I thought a silent three day weekend retreat was intense!). God bless you! Welcome back! We are fine and we keep you in our prayers. I will also be putting more effort into the article soon. -- (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info[edit]

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. You do make a fairly convincing argument about the project's hypersensitivity to labeling bigots as bigots (which we're happy to do behind the curtain per WP:SPADE).

But I'm really just trying to save my little corner of the swamp. Besides, I've given fair warning about that fact to another editor who might normally share your concerns, but she has decided to "sit this one out." Thanks for the info and generating that discussion though; it has made me more confident that I can succeed with my upcoming CfD, God willing. -- Kendrick7talk 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kendrick. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your position. Frankly, I find the bias categories issues confusing and the decision-making process chaotic and inconsistent. Better just to stay out of the crossfire. Good luck on your upcoming CfD! -- (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Saint Kateri Tekakwitha[edit]

Saint Kateri Tekakwitha. She is the first indigenous American saint, from the St. Lawrence region of Canada and New York. She is affectionately known as "The Lily of the Mohawks." She lived from 1656 to 1680 and was canonized in 2012.

Centreville, Virginia[edit]

That's where you geolocate to. Is it right, perchance? I only know the place as a name on an exit sign near IAD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we're about 10 miles south of Dulles airport. According to Wikipedia, more than 71,000 of us live here. But, beware! Centreville is where the nuts come from. The Virginia Tech shooter, for example. -- (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Pamela Geller make *him* do it too?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, Roscelese, Binksternet and Heidi think she did, lol. -- (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It never occurred to me that human beings lived around there. I thought it was all shiny black buildings with no identifying marks full of government agents doing unspeakable things. But I guess they have to have like a mixed-use complex to go home to and wash the blood off their hands and go to Panera Bread and the ABC store on the ground floor and stuff. Good times, good times!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you may be confusing Centreville with the Langley of the average Wikipedia editor's imagination. On the other hand, the National Reconnaissance Office is close by, but it's blue and shiny. -- (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I only know it from freeway signs and that semifreeway thing that runs from I-66 to Dulles. It's hard to tell where one place starts and another stops from the road, although I do understand in theory that all those places in NoVA used to be real towns and some of them even have non-glass buildings in their little old downtowns. The NRO is my favorite TLA of all time, by the way!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My favorite TLA is WTF! Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Vandalism as applied on Wikipedia is defined at WP:VANDALISM. Note: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." You may believe other editors are misguided, and they may reciprocate, but neither of you are vandals. You just disagree. Please stop with the wrangling over "vandalism" and get on with figuring out what belongs in the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that their reverts were not "good faith effort(s) to improve the encyclopedia". Do you always beat up on the injured party in disputes like this? Did you actually review my edits and their unjustified reversal, before weighing in? Did you leave messages on the talk pages of Dave Dial and The Four Deuces, both experienced editors, advising them not to mass revert perfectly good edits without a damn good reason? If you did, I missed them. I'm willing to assume good faith and assume you did it off-Wiki so as not to embarrass them, you know, what with their having seniority and all. The bottom line is: if you're trying to tell me I can't squawk when someone abuses me, YOU are out of line. You haven't done your homework here, so don't start getting petulant. My edits DO belong in the article. -- (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And you have not done your homework regarding Wikipedia policies. Accusing others of vandalism over a content dispute is not and has never been considered appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. You are welcome to complain about those reverts in a civil manner on the talk page, you are not allowed to repeatedly accuse others of vandalism because you don't feel you are getting your way in a content dispute. I suggest you listen to what Acroterion and I are trying to explain to you, because continuing this behavior won't go well for you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Believe what you like, Gamaliel (aka Nostradamus), but don't think that your attempt to bully me here will have any effect on my behavior. It's more fun to bully someone than to address the issues he raises in an objective and dispassionate manner, isn't it? -- (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you choose to interpret our attempts at explaining appropriate Wikipedia behavior as bullying and abuse and your actual abusive behavior as objective and dispassionate, there's nothing we can do about that. Perhaps another editor will finally get through to you before you are blocked, which is the inevitable result of continuing to behave in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, could you answer one question for me, please? If the mass reverts of my edits were not VANDALISM per policy, then how would you characterize them? -- (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As a content dispute that should be discussed in civil terms on the article talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The formatting and placement of references is considered content? I thought content meant the article text, not the refs. -- (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you link me to the specific edit you are referring to? It would help me better address your question. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
from the SPLC talk page: TFD, are you referring to this edit you made? . . . . [The sequence is: I made a bunch of edits, DD2K (Dave Dial) did a mass revert, EvergreenFir reverted him, The Four Deuces (TFD) reverted him and EvergreenFir did a partial revert of TFD. If you need to know what I was doing in my edits, my edit summaries should be descriptive enough.] PS: I appreciate your taking time to look into the specifics. -- (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing that diff, I would not label that vandalism, no. I would characterize that as accidental collateral damage. Was reverting your references inappropriate? Yes, it appears so. But these things happen sometimes in content disputes. Most editors have done this inadvertently, and I am one of them. This is not seen as vandalism but is generally viewed as an honest mistake made in haste and the heat of conflict. The appropriate response is to ask the editor to refrain from removing appropriate and non-controversial material along with disputed material. If they do not respond in a positive manner and continue to revert non-controversial material, then you can enlist other editors on that page or contact an administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you are the voice of reason when, as in your last comment, you rouse yourself out of "drive-by admin" mode. Just having my complaint taken seriously, as you have done now, restores my faith in your humanity. Seriously! In a rational world, your suggested remedies would work. In the Wiki-world, it's just not worth the effort. Generally speaking, I would say that editors so blinded by their partisanship that it degrades their COMPETENCE (I do not refer to you in this instance) probably can't be reasoned with anyway, and, I've never been good at begging. Thanks for your help and taking time to investigate. I consider the matter now closed. -- (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


your misuse of RevDel is noted, with amusement, in this edit: [1]. When I stop laughing, I'll probably start worrying about your state of mind! Here's part of the policy you may have overlooked:


RevisionDelete was introduced for administrators in 2010. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact.

-- (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Our NPOV policy does not apply to sources. Most sources have a pov, that's to be expected. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The mindset I'm trying to describe is on display in these two comments made by different editors (redacted to protect the guilty) on the SPLC talk page:
"EvergreenFir, if something is only mentioned in fringe right-wing sources, then it is unimportant and those sources are not rs anyway. If mainstream sources ignore something then it is unimportant. Instead of reading fringe sources and trying to add their info to articles, read mainstream sources and put in what they say."
"EvergreenFir, the addition is undue weight. The sources listed are POV and are only rumors and innuendos. ...."
The two editors I'm quoting here don't seem to understand NPOV policy the way you do. The bone of contention is the use of something Paul Bedard wrote in his column in March 2014 in the Washington Examiner – that in March 2014, the FBI Hate Crimes webpage no longer showed links to the ADL or SPLC as "Resources". Now, anyone who knows how to use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and knows how to go to the current FBI Hate Crimes page can confirm this as a fact. It's practically self-evident. (Whether including Bedard's fact in the SPLC article violates UNDUE is a whole other argument). But some editors, the minute they see the fact is coming from The Washington Examiner (or any source that is not "mainstream") start shouting "fringe right-wing source", "not RS", "POV source", etc. -- (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence[edit]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)