User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Re: Genre

Hey; The field in question has been removed. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just occurred to me as I got my second question over my removal of the genres >.<" But will do so onwards. Have a good day, mate ≈ The Haunted Angel

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of genres in {{tl:Infobox Album}}

I'm just about to remove this from the template itself, so that although the field will still be populated in articles until cached pages refresh, it won't be shown; so you don't actually need to go round deleting that field- far too much work. It will all work out in the wash, as they say. --Rodhullandemu 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DCEETA

see area 58 deletion discussion User_talk:Dogue is it a hoax, original, or copyright? which do you want? each quoted passage is less than 200 words why don't you flag instead of nuking? this is the definition of fair use (i'm beginning to feel paranoid, however, what you need to understand is that you will not be able to supress the truth) i promise you.

i appreciate your patience, i will revise the piece. however, please be aware that i wrote it without quotes as Area 58 with the same sources. You saw the result. esthetically i prefer the pithy quote to the bland recitation, [[1]] and all. the quotes that are too digressive i will restate, but the NYTimes primary source should stay to refute the hoax spam. cheers. Dogue (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

as far as 'security' versus 'intense secrecy' goes, the latter it seems more accurate, these are guys who have no public budget, they have concertina wire and motion detectors, and a perimeter patrol 24/7/365, unlike the main base which has only vehicle control, not even a fence unlike most of the other forts in the DC area. Dogue (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

please note that an ALR(talk) tried to delete all reference to area 58.Dogue (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fourmost

Your recent removal of POV from this article was welcomed - by me, at least. However I notice the same user has reverted back again. I was involved in a previous clean-up of the article, but the unidentified user obviously wants his/her own way. Read his/her own talk page to discover their belligerence and arrogance. Is it worth a third party getting involved to try to resolve this ongoing, and unacceptable situation ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and effort. I appreciate that. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: HPC

Hi, I note you reverted the changes on housepricecrash. Apologies if I didn't follow protocol, I feel the point is valid though - it would have been helpful if you could give a reason why you disagree. HPC is now the home of many people more interested in conspiracy theories and predictions of an apocalypse in 2012 - is this not worth noting? 78.105.20.93 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether I disagree. If you have concerns about the articles neutrality then either edit the article, or raise those concerns on the talk page. Simply flagging the article as not neutral and adding your own personal analysis of forum posts to the talk page merely tells us that you, personally, disagree with the site's content. You need to tell us why the the article is either inaccurate and/or not neutral. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of History of slavery in Iran

An article that you have been involved in editing, History of slavery in Iran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of slavery in Iran. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Killa (film)

Hi there. I've removed the prod you placed on this article because it isn't eligible - the author all ready removed a prod that I put on the article earlier. I had just tagged it for clean up, but since you pointed out the fact that this may be a hoax I nominated the article at AfD. You can see the nomination here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mrs. Doyle

Sorry, hyperlinking is a petty obsession of mine, I am trying to go cold turkey.

Frank Dux...

Ugh, what are we going to do about all these sock vs meatpuppets editing on the page? This is getting out of hand.

Djma12 ^(talk) 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally have less patience. Single purpose accounts, some of which are editing with summaries such as "per Frank Dux's request", do not strike me as genuine attempt at collaborative editing. Rather, someone is simply trying to sanitize his wikipedia article from criticism. I've commented on the article's application for semi-protection. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

white trash

I realized that after I typed it and I was going to sandbox or minor edit it and when I went back to remove it, you had already did it, so thanks. I thought there was another song/album he had with that as the title, but I couldn't find it other than the use of the word in lyrics. So disregard. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mr. Men Show

looks like we had the same idea at the same time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mr. Men Show (UK Version) Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have beaten you to it, if I hadn't messed up the prod on the wrong version! I have no idea why Coppertwig didn't do this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry to have stepped on your toes. I noticed that someone finally addressed that trivia (accents and catchphrases) in the article, which I've tried to do in the past but finally threw my hands up. Noticed the "UK" version purely by chance while looking at your diffs. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Undertones

I've went ahead and blocked him, but instead of treating his edits as vandalism, you should take it to [[WP:AN3|Administrators edit war noticeboard], and possibly the dispute resolution process for sockpuppets (I don't know the page right now). AIV is for blatant vandalism. Also the IP address this person is using comes from London School of Economics and Political Science. You might want to let their IT people know that a student is misusing Wikipedia. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

re:Palindrome

Sorry about that bad revert. I guess that I just saw that "rats" part in the edit and immediately thought it was vandalism. My apologies. I'll try to be more attentive next time. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  05:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Zantzinger

I am not sure what you are citing as incorrect information. The man was convicted, sent to jail for a mere six months, and is from both Charles County, and St. Mary's County, depending on the era. There are two options here: 1. Clarify, so I may correct it, or 2. Instead of removing everything I write, edit what is incorrect yourself. Ripkenfan86 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your point now, and I am in agreement with most of it. I will make sure my wording is more correct in the future. Since you deem him not notable, are you against my additions altogether, or do you think they are acceptable if worded properly?Ripkenfan86 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Escape. I appreciate the fact that you don't pull punches, and that you are very informative and precise when dealing with a newbie, which I am, essentially, as far as additions and contributions are concerned. Keep up the good work. I don't have a lot of time these next two days, being Christmas and all, but I will get to more precise contributions concerning William Zantzinger fairly soon. Happy Holidays, as I have no way of knowing which holiday, or combination of holidays, you celebrate. (Sidenote: I don't know if you have ever listened to Bob Dylan's "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll", but if you have not, it is fairly good, especially to one who is native to, and hates, Baltimore, where the offense occured.) Ripkenfan86 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Budgies

Ok, fixed. In that case, we might want to move colour variants to the same area. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

United States at the 2006 Winter Paralympics

There is not a single source on this entire page except mine. You should delete the entire page if you need sources. You are the reason wikipedia is disregarded by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia to mount personal campaigns. A reference to a free website that you have just created yourself is not a cite worth anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

your right i created a website in 2007 and just now decided to put it on wikipedia in an attempt to try to fool everyone. also, figure out what a soapbox is. I stated fact only, there was no judgement or call to action. get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your fact has nothing to support it other than a hastily constructed free website that talks about raising a petition. I think that qualifies as a "call to action". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

the call to action is not on wikipedia. find any reference to anything else on this page. You've already been proven wrong about me making the webpage now when it's clearly copywritten in 2007. You are not wikipedia god and you do not have the right to delete fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't an event covered by the media. you can't just go on espn.com and find it, especially a disqualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

not even on the united states paralympic website does it list any results from this event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you created the page, or when it was created, is not relevant. It is not an adequate source for providing a verifiable cite for this material. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you want to add this information you have a straightforward course of action; provide a cite from a reliable source. If you can't do this, then sorry, you cannot publish accusations at people without proof. Surely you must understand why this should be? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

that would be fine except we both know you can't verify a single thing on this entire page, but you only want to delete my edit, not the entire page. i know you think you're the wikipedia police, but all your doing is being hypocritical by undoing one thing you don't personally believe and leaving the rest which is not verifiable at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the rest of the page is not potentially libellous and therefore doesn't need to conform to a much higher standard of verifiability. What I personally believe is not the issue, it's what Wikipedia sets as policy for good reason. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know why you continue to cite biographies of living persons. One, this is not a biography. Two, you have know idea whether the subject is living or not. Just admit that this is no more than you personally wanting to be in control of something that you have no right to be in control of and I will leave you alone. Problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

thats what i thought 72.77.93.34 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also very interesting that you state, "Whether you created the page, or when it was created, is not relevant" and at the same time you make the accusation, "A reference to a free website that you have just created yourself is not a cite worth anything." So if the creator of the webpage and the timeframe of when it was created don't matter, why do you use these accusations to personally attack me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.93.34 (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the problem, Wikipedia policy and what you can do to fix things. Unless you think I'm misrepresenting this, I don't think I can help you further. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Louis Walsh

But he's irish and Ireland had him before he went international. How about getting some Irish users to check it instead of deleting it? --86.40.199.18 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow what this has to do with providing verifiable cites. The name on the article is cited. The other name, apart from being unclear exactly where it's coming from, isn't. Until a good cite can be found for it that over rules the existing one, having both is just confusing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Woods info

I think I might have added some of that back in comments, but not in visible text. However, I don't feel strongly so you are free to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)