User talk:Batman2005/Archive01

Welcome!

Hello Batman2005/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —jiy (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is concerning Missing White Woman Syndrome. When making major revisons of a page, please type a reason into the edit box. If this is not enough space to explain you reasons, post it on the talk page. I'm reverting your changes until then.--Hraefen 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Simpson

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the contributions! We're always happy to have new Wikipedians with a serious interest in improving articles! As you can see, we're also very keen on maintaining a neutral point of view (or NPOV) in all articles. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have been reverted. There's a great article about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. We thank you for your interest in helping Wikipedia to be well-rounded in its presentation of controversial subjects, and look forward to being able to fully incorporate your contributions! Extraordinary Machine 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Harrell-related content

I've noticed that you've reverted edits to restore the mention of Josh Harrell several times. His article, and content mentioning him from Sigma Chi and his high school, are up for removal according to the notability requirements used to determine whether a person is of sufficient interest to merit an article here. It seems a safe assumption that you are Josh; in any case, please don't take any offense that the content is up for deletion. It's not a judgment of the quality of the content or as Josh as a person — speaking on a personal level, I think it's well written, my father received the Significant Sig award (and my mother was Sweetheart one year), and I love soccer — so it's all thing that are of interest to me as well.

One last thing; if you are Josh, please consider keeping the content from the article on your user page if the vote calls for deletion. It'd be a shame to lose the whole thing. Deadsalmon 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the VfD tag on the Josh Harrell article. It is an ongoing discussion and violation of wiki policy for a non-admin to remove the tag or if the vote has not been closed yet. Thank you. --Dysepsion 20:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't do it again....I promsie! Batman2005

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages. If you continue to remove them, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deadsalmon 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, no. Batman2005

Matthew Shepherd

First, welcome to Wikipedia. Please get in the habit of signing your posts on talk page. You can add your signature by typing ~~~~.

Categorization at Wikipedia is not rigidly structured. I just completed a re-write of the categorization policy, and it is long established practice that a category is for browsing through articles that are similar or related to the topic. Just because the crime is not "legally" a hate crime does not mean that it doesn't relate to hate crimes. If it inspired potential federal legislation about hate crimes, or just discusses why it isn't a hate crime, then it belongs in the hate crime category. There is no doubt that the article is related to hate crimes so it doesn't matter if it was legally a hate crime. If you want to create a more rigidly defined category, like "hate crime convictions" be my guest. It would be a subcategory of Category:Hate crimes. You could also try and convince us to change accepted policy and practice, but this article wouldn't be the place to do it. -- Samuel Wantman 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I'm apparently blocked for a day because you're not allowed to tell others to stop consistently vandalising your talk page. Hmmm, curious.

Saying he had a "hard on for your talk page" isn't very civil nor needed don't you think? Sasquatch t|c 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've unblocked you assuming you get the message. If anything you post is going to be directed at a certain user and can cause offense, you're better off not posting it. Sasquatch t|c 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your just digging yourself a deeper hole. The other user obvious saw it as offensive and I could see why and so he had every right to remove it. He also was right in stopping you from removing vandalism warnings. The only time they should be removed is when you do a proper archive and if the warnings are recent, you should not touch them (See Wikipedia:Talk pages If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you may archive it. You may then remove comments from your talk page, but please make sure that those comments are readily accessible on another page.). For future reference, always refer to the old adage: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Uncivility does warrant blocks and the other party was just following policy. If you feel I have been overly harsh, then you can got to WP:ANI and we can have a discussion there. Sasquatch t|c 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Rotherham

You may like to read the comment I have put on your AfD on this: I suspect you may not be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Johnlp 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I put this on your user page rather than your user talk page. I have now relocated it here. Johnlp 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note you just put on my talk page. Johnlp 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Curry Rogers and Jeffrey A. Wilson

Hi Batman

Regarding Kristina Curry Rogers you nominated this still incompleted stub (which i had just posted only a few minutes previously!) for deletion as

"non-notable, possible vanity bio"

Quite apart from the non-notable objection (which is also not applicable in this cases, as you will see from the bibliography and additional detail added to this page), what makes you think this is a vanity entry?

With Jeffrey A. Wilson you likewise said "non notable"

Please take a look again at both of these pages, I am sure that you will now agree with me that by wikipedia criteria both these individuals are notable.

I don't know if you have any familiarity with paleontology, but both Drs Curry Rogers and Wilson are important workers in the field of Sauropod evolution.

While there are heaps of entries on Wikipedia on many obscure and fragmentarily known dinosaur genera (regarding which I have no problem with, in fact i think it is good), there are as yet very few write-ups on the Paleontologists who are making these discoveries. This gives Wikipedia a sort of adolescent quality - lots of stuff on cool dinosaurs, but very little on the real science and scientists behind their discovery. One of the tasks I have set myself here on Wikipedia is to at leats partially address that lack, as even basic pages are better than nothing.

For the above reasons therefore, I have removed the NfD tags from these two pages. M Alan Kazlev 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Popiel

What seems to be the problem with my info about the rince Popiel legend? Why did you count it as a hoax?

Norum

More on Prince Popiel

About your AfD for Prince Popiel. I've done a bit of quick research on Prince Popiel, it is clearly not a hoax (though it is a legend). Crypticfirefly 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) You might want to consider withdrawing the nomination. Crypticfirefly 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]