User talk:Rklawton/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rklawton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Also not vandalism
You took out a properly-reference quote about academia. Was that because you disagreed with the point view expressed by it? If so, please add a balancing quote instead of "deleting well-referenced information". --Uncle Ed 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- My bad. It looked like vandalism until I dug deeper. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Rklawton 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, you can go ahead if you have time. Thanks! ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism warning on talk page
Please refrain from repeatedly adding a vandalism warning to my talk page. I have not vandalised wikipedia, my account has been accessed by someone else, I have since secured it. Thankyou for the warning though, it is important that wikipedia is kept free from attacks by vandals, I have read the message carefully and do not need it to be there any further, thank you. D Dinneen 19:45, 20 November 2006
- You might want to keep that notice up as a record in case it should happen again. Rklawton 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Your user page
While it might be acceptable to have a link to your place of work or something like that it is highly problematic to have a large fraction of your user page devoted to that. I am particularly concerned by your listing your prices. JoshuaZ 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Out of my whole user page, are you saying that a single bullet point line is a "large fraction"? I'd be very interested in seeing the policy about that! Rklawton 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. I suppose the perception of that was because you list all your photos which are on Wiki which at first glance (perhaps incorrectly) came across as almost being like a gallery of examples. Removal of the numbers should make things fine. JoshuaZ 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fine for what? You still haven't show that there exists any violation of policy. Rklawton 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't in the current draft of WP:USERPAGE but I was under the impression that we generally discourage the use of user pages for commercial purposes. I'll go bring the issue up there on the talk page and we will hopefully get some input from others. JoshuaZ 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- One of the stated purposes of a user page is to let other users know who they are working with. A single line at the top of my page indicating my profession and rates does that very succinctly. Rklawton 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't in the current draft of WP:USERPAGE but I was under the impression that we generally discourage the use of user pages for commercial purposes. I'll go bring the issue up there on the talk page and we will hopefully get some input from others. JoshuaZ 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fine for what? You still haven't show that there exists any violation of policy. Rklawton 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. I suppose the perception of that was because you list all your photos which are on Wiki which at first glance (perhaps incorrectly) came across as almost being like a gallery of examples. Removal of the numbers should make things fine. JoshuaZ 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Images on the date pages
To be honest, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about having images there, and as I was reverting them, I noticed a distinct U.S. slant to the choices (several shuttle missions, for example). My concern was that the user seemed to be running through all of the date pages indiscriminately yanking all of the images. I noticed what he was doing a while ago and let the first few go, but when he hit 10, the pattern started to bother me. And the reason he added to the last one doesn't strike me as reasonable; you can't have an image for everything, so if you have an image at all, it'll favour something. And there are iconic dates for which an image is appropriate (September 11 for 9/11; November 22 for the J.F.K. assassination, probably others. And, now that I look back, 9/11 was his first deletion. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Images, revisited. So here's an interesting question -- do you know if anyone actually monitors that page? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's three or four of us that do. Rklawton 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems almost dead. User:Adxm asked User:CalendarWatcher why some fictional entries that he'd added to July 19 were reverted. I suggested that he ask about the overall guidelines on that page, which he did (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Fictional events), but there was no response. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The page's history indicates reasonable activity. It's a pretty stable project. Rklawton 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Sam Houston's election I thought we didn't typically include elections in date articles. How was this particular election especially notable?
And how many elections did the Republic of Texas have? Damned few, I reckon. --CalendarWatcher 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- So? How notable was the Republic of Texas in the first place? Not very, at least to anyone but a Texan. Rklawton 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Prod removal from Himbo
Unfortunately, any removal of a prod, for any or even no reason, prevents the article ever being prodded again. I've accordingly filed a regular AfD request on it instead. Seraphimblade 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look. Rklawton 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Image:Rklawton.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rklawton.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Hbdragon88 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just the messenger here, I didn't nominate it, and I've already stated that your image should be kept. The nominator didn't follow through with steps 1 and 3, so I'm just finishing up with step 3 here. Hbdragon88 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- When I attempted to upload a self portrait for my user page, I was denied on the grounds that users cannot upload photos of themselves on Wikipedia. --CmdrClow 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- So post the link to this exchange where we can see it, and we can work from there. Rklawton 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what happened to the link, but I did try it. It may have been on my previous account, but I was denied a self image. It's a good thing you're an anal retentive. CmdrClow 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- So post the link to this exchange where we can see it, and we can work from there. Rklawton 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- When I attempted to upload a self portrait for my user page, I was denied on the grounds that users cannot upload photos of themselves on Wikipedia. --CmdrClow 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Calendar
Thank you for taking my proposition under advisement. --CmdrClow 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a specific warning template. Usually I just leave a message asking them to not do it. However you should be aware that currently there isn't a specific policy that disallows the removal of warnings from a user's talk page. It used to be part of the vandalism policy, but its under dispute. Thanks for reverting his addition to Cain and Abel; it was better coming from another editor than me. Best, Gwernol 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll see if I can add my two bits to the dispute. I think a 30 day period is minimally warrented. When I saw the Cain & Abel edit, I knew that a 2nd opinion would help. Cheers, Rklawton 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks! Using the ! operator did the trick. I'm double-checking now to ensure that it's reading the control's current value, rather than the cached "recordset value". --Uncle Ed 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: battle over ITWA
Just because the ITWA hasn't felt the need to purchase a domain name yet doesn't make it less legit/more bogus. Slyder PilotE@ 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- This thread more appropriately belongs in ITWA mediation. Rklawton 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- You had mentioned this outside of the mediation. Slyder PilotE@ 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Scroll down to find the November 30, 2006 entry: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/jdmurph0/page2/ - That's right, a mention on the Sporting News website.--Slyder Pilot 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we count blogs as reliable sources. Keep in mind that you've got a well established WP:COI in this matter. Rklawton 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just bringing it to your attention. ;-) --Slyder Pilot 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Hey!
Wow nice to see the baby name from you, I haven't stopped by in a long time. I see you have become quite prolific. Heading back to the zoo anytime soon? :) -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good to hear from you, too. I see you've been busy. Of all the names I saw on the list, I liked "Wiki" the best. The only problem with that name, though, is the obvious rhyme. Actually, my daughter is named "Molly" - from Molybdenum. My wife didn't want to mess with her teachers, so we didn't put the elemental name on her birth certificate. Even so, we got a note home from her kindergarden teacher. hehehe. Over 11,000 Wikipedia edits and a couple thousand in Commons + other languages. I've got one barnstar and maybe two people who think I should be an admin :-). Rklawton 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- FYI I nominated two of your images over at WP:FPC hope you don't mind :) I give them a 33% chance. I really like the Mr.MCfeely pic, but portraits are almost impossible to pass. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind, and thanks for the compliment. FPC is a really tough process. Someone is going to be able to publish some pretty spiffy coffee table books with the results. Rklawton 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- FYI I nominated two of your images over at WP:FPC hope you don't mind :) I give them a 33% chance. I really like the Mr.MCfeely pic, but portraits are almost impossible to pass. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphototalk 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, it looks good. I think I'll hit up the "needs photo" category and see if I can add the geographically-oriented requests. Rklawton 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
==Larabar Re: Larabar page
Whoops, looks like you caught me on that one. I had no idea such criteria existed. I really have a tough time navigating those internal Wikipedia criteria/protocol/process/guideline/suggestion/etc. pages anyhow. Basically I was looking for more info about the company and, upon finding no page on wikipedia, decided to make one modeling it off the Clif bar page, in case someone else wanted to find the same stuff as I did. But, like I said, it's basically uncontestible that the page fails the criteria, so I'll step down here =) Vanillacreem 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm still learning how everything works around here. Rklawton 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not finished with you yet RKLawton in correcting your eers here, ....Matter of fact there's a new book coming out soon proving the validity of tthe last picture shown in death, of mine that you personally tried (unsuccesfully) to trash, taken by Bachelder,By G-D, I will have the last word over you and those other doubters! cathytreks 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Created a few moments ago. Shyamal 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Announcement
To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
Re: Your advice to shoot another user and comment vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology)
Hello. While I share your general feelings in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology), your opinion to "shoot the author" is extremely out of line. Threats of physical violence against other Wikipedians are not funny, and are not acceptable under any circumstances. Please consider this an only and final warning, and note that the blocking policy states in this regard:
- Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users that make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely.
As regards the same edit, please also do not modify and/or delete others' comments, as you did (without apparent reason) with the comments of User:Bwithh. This is unacceptable talk page behaviour. Thank you, Sandstein 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- The deletion was inadvertent - probably some sort of edit conflict. The "shoot the author" comment was humor and occasionally used by Wikipedians to chastise editors who create hoax articles. Rklawton 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, according to this ANI post, there seems to be some database bug messing up edits today. It appears I was wrong in accusing you of comment vandalism, sorry. Sandstein 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- The deletion was inadvertent - probably some sort of edit conflict. The "shoot the author" comment was humor and occasionally used by Wikipedians to chastise editors who create hoax articles. Rklawton 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Consider also that my shot at humor may have been incorrectly interpreted as a threat. I'd like to think that with over 10,000 edits, my contributions here have been generally useful. I'd also like to think I was intelligent and good-looking, too. But I delude myself. Rklawton 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course I was not seriously thinking you threatened to actually shoot somebody. But as we're working in an international, text-only environment in which culture-specific and nonverbal cues for humour don't exist, I'm afraid we can't afford ourselves the luxury of that sort of humour. Sandstein 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Given that (appropriate) humor is welcome in an otherwise stuffy encyclopedic environment, would "flog" or "pillory" be OK instead? Those sorts of punishments seem to be less common these days and thus more likely to be considered a jest. Rklawton 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- One would hope so, but I guess we do have contributors from countries such as Saudi Arabia, where these punishments as well as beheadings are (ahem) at the cutting edge of penal law... Most Internet users these days would recognise the smiley symbol :-) as a cue for humour, I assume, but I'd just err on the side of caution when directly addressing other users. We have already enough clash-of-civilisations-type wikidrama as it is... Sandstein 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's funny when world views collide. It's a good thing I put my Lewis Carroll "Of with his head" line on hold. How about "Pie him/her"? That sort of thing used to be popular when I was in school. Rklawton 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh well, okay, I doubt anyone can feel seriously threatened by that, except possibly our resident coulrophobe ... Sandstein 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's funny when world views collide. It's a good thing I put my Lewis Carroll "Of with his head" line on hold. How about "Pie him/her"? That sort of thing used to be popular when I was in school. Rklawton 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- One would hope so, but I guess we do have contributors from countries such as Saudi Arabia, where these punishments as well as beheadings are (ahem) at the cutting edge of penal law... Most Internet users these days would recognise the smiley symbol :-) as a cue for humour, I assume, but I'd just err on the side of caution when directly addressing other users. We have already enough clash-of-civilisations-type wikidrama as it is... Sandstein 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Given that (appropriate) humor is welcome in an otherwise stuffy encyclopedic environment, would "flog" or "pillory" be OK instead? Those sorts of punishments seem to be less common these days and thus more likely to be considered a jest. Rklawton 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Requested discussion pointer
Hi Robert. I'm getting a bit confused by various views on verifiability on the graving discussion and wondered if you could clarify a point for me? I can find no mention in the Wikipedia guidelines to indicate that reliable sources for neologisms should be dictionaries or encyclopediae, yet you say "Wikipedia needs a way to be certain a word is sufficiently popular, and dictionary inclusion is our chosen method". I don't find searching the guidelines that easy and wondered if you could point me in the right direction to find information on this. Thanks Verica Atrebatum 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, read WP:NEO. It's a short article. At the bottom it states we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Dictionaries or encyclopedias satisfy the requirement beyond dispute (hence "chosen method"). Obviously, this isn't to the exclusion of other sources, but these sources must be verifiable and they must be about the term - not simply use the term (as per above). The graving article quite clearly fails in this. The novice editors have been able to find sources indicating the term has been used, but they haven't uncovered any material about the term itself. For example, enter "What is Googling" (in quotes) into a search engine, and you will find articles that describe Googling. Enter "what is graving" (in quotes) into a search engine, and you'll find nothing. See the difference? Rklawton 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. Yes, I'd already read that. I was hoping there some further clarification of exactly what is meant by 'books and papers'. It's a bit open to interpretation really. Thanks for the pointer. I'll probably write one more piece for the discussion and then drop it. Verica Atrebatum 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Your death threat against me
I notice that in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tuba (mythology) your response features a proposition that I be executed at gunpoint. As well as finding your suggestion utterly irresponsible, sickening and quite frankly, frightening, I take the threat extremely seriously and am considering reporting this incident to the appropriate authorities. I need to be assured that you are not conspiring, or encouraging others, to murder me. I have been terrified beyond description for the past few days, unable to leave the house or even stand near windows, knowing that I could be shot in the head by you or your associates at any time, for being the creator of a tongue-in-cheek hoax article on a free internet encyclopedia. I also suggest that you thoroughly read and memorise WP:NPA to prevent you from unintentionally threatening to violently end the lives of any other Wikipedia editors. Thanks for your time. Yeanold Viskersenn 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, cut down on the C-Movie acting, will you, Yeanold Viskersenn? Although it was very ill-advised humour, Rklawton has admitted it was a bad call, and I'd expect a practical joker like yourself to have noticed as much at least after reading the above discussions. If I were you, I'd be very quiet about my large-scale hoax vandalism, and not go and pester others about it. Sandstein 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- As per worthy advice from Switzerland, my suggestion has been downgraded to pieing, um piing, er peyeing. Oh, you know what I mean. Rklawton 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Questions
1. I have been a Wikipedia editor for about six weeks. How long before a person is no longer considered to be "new"? 2. How do you find articles for deletion? I mean, do you go looking for stuff to nominate, or do you just make adjustments as you go along? For instance, did you just happen upon the "graving" page, or is there some kind of page where a person can go to see "new submissions" or whatever? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but I can tell you that my personal Wikipedia "habit" is to start out by looking up something so I can learn about it, and then one link leads to another. (If you look at my contributions, most of them are pretty minor -- adding a sentence here and there, correcting misspellings, etc.) I'm just curious. :) Countedx58 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- How long… Newness is in the eye of the beholder. That determination will be entirely in the hands of the closing admin. I needed to mention it in the article so the new editors would understand – and to bring it to the closing administrator's attention.
- Finding articles. Sometimes I just review newly created articles regardless of topic. I learn a lot of cool new stuff that way. I'm able to help out new editors with formatting, language, etc. I often find blatant vandalism. When I do, I flag it for immediate removal. Other times, I find well intentioned editors creating articles that simply aren't suitable for inclusion. In cases that aren't obvious or in cases that bear discussion, I nominate them for deletion and explain my reasons. I (we) often use abbreviations because of the sheer repetition. Hence you'll see often references to WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, etc. Experienced editors know what these terms mean, and new editors can follow the links. In the case of Graving, I've contributed to several cemetery-related articles, and I keep an eye on them. When the "Graving" link showed up under their "See also" sections, I checked out the article.
- When I tried fixing the article, I ran into a few problems.
- Neologism: a lot of times we can fix this simply by renaming the article. That's no big deal. But…
- No Original Research: when I considered the article's subject in order to find a better name, I realized that it comprised primarily of original research describing a group's hobby. Hobbies (or sports) aren't off limits, but…
- Sources: information about hobbies (etc) must come from verifiable sources (books, articles, movies, etc.), and I couldn't find anything significant to back up the idea of "graving" as a notable activity. If you can find a solution for that problem, the rest of this would all fall into place, to wit: renaming and rewriting. Rklawton 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay ... "Sometimes I just review newly created articles regardless of topic." So how do you locate new articles? Is there a "new articles" page somewhere? Thanks! Countedx58 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ah - this is what you are looking for: Special:Newpages. Happy browsing! Rklawton 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Another question for you, then: What about "schnoodling"? Shouldn't this be deleted as a neologism as well? (I'd mark the page for deletion, but I don't want my name associated with it! Eww!)
- You're on the right track. It's not something I want to deal with while on vacation, but I'll check back next week. Rklawton 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Have a good time! Countedx58 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Thanks for the nice welcome
Enjoy an enlightening and fulfilling Saturnalia, New Years, or Hogmanay. Son of Berk's Dog 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: No problem
All in a day's work! --Kukini 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually have no objections to your edit. Like many editors, I make mistakes on RC Patrol. VP detects section blanking as vandalism. Sorry for the confusion. -- Selmo (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Some possibilites are to use 3RR, report vandalism, or request checkuser, or try the Administrators' noticeboard if he continues. Easiest is just to simply keep reverting the deletions unti he gets tired. That may mean letting him "win" temporarily and but keep adding back the sourced material at a later time and date. I will watch the article long-term. Ultramarine 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- One possibility is to use checkuser to see if this is sockmaster user:Jacob Peters. Do not break any rules yourself like 3RR.Ultramarine 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this seems likely. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters show IPs similar to 68.126.253.190 which was used on the Lenin article.Ultramarine 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Thanks for the welcome...
...but it's not like I'm new here; we've talked before. Skydiver 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya coulda just tagged it for "facts" ya know... Rklawton 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did i miss something (other than the train, the boat, the mark and the bus)? Philbertgray 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the "nig" remark was a pretty good giveaway, or maybe I'm livin in the wrong part of town. Philbertgray 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may be on to something - those doohickys are always causing trouble. ;-)Philbertgray 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Album cover
I apologize for the mistake adding the picture of the Ellis Paul album cover on the Ellis Paul page. Believe it or not I thought I did all the necessary research/reading before uploading the pictures and adding them to the article. Sorry. Kmzundel 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the words of encouragement. This has been a steep learning curve, but I'm shooting for a featured article. :-) I just added two pix again - love the B&W photo, but wanted a front-face view at top. Kmzundel 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rklawton,
Since this isn't a case of simple vandalism, but still a case bad-faith editing, I suggest you post this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The problem with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is that it really should be used for cases of simple vandalism that admins can look at the account's contributions and instantly tell that it is vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: request for peer review
I have requested peer review for my Ellis Paul article and would appreciate feedback from you at your convenience. Thank you! Kmzundel 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments/help! Actually the B&W photo was uploaded by the owner/photographer herself. Is there something I can do to clarify that? For some reason, though, she seems to have scanned the photo from its use on a promotional postcard that Ellis Paul had printed. (That's a guess on my part simply from the name she gave the jpg file.) Her name is Melissa M. Bugg and her website is http://www.artistictouchphoto.com. That particular photo can be found at least 2 places on the Internet that I know of - including Ellis Paul's web site in the "Onstage" photo gallery. Kmzundel 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, this is a real video game. And, when a licensed video game is concerned on Wikipedia, it is always notable. WhisperToMe 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell on Wikipedia, all licensed video games are notable. Chubby Cherub made Seanbaby's list of worst NES games of all time, anyway. WhisperToMe 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-15.htm = Seanbaby's rant is one "outside of the company" source http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/review/587187.html = Gamefaqs
And, by the way, Seanbaby has a Wikipedia article - Of course Gamefaqs does too.
Also see the various links here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chubby+Cherub%22&btnG=Google+Search
WhisperToMe 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, from those very much non-trivial sources, I found that the game was released in Japan as Obake no Q-tarō WanWan Panic, which was based on a manga by Fujiko Fujio. WhisperToMe 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Lawton, the way that the WP:Software defines trivial doesn't seem to agree with your definition. WhisperToMe 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Moved picture as per style guide which expressly states that images should not be looking off page".
Can you please point me to where that is from, as from your edit review I do not see what you mean with it.
Also I wonder why you want to move the image to the left and the TOC to the right, when 99% of all articles have it reverse - and I feel uniformity is a good thing for these things. People expect it to be left, left is where the eye and the mouse will tend to be. We read from left to right, and all other 'control fields' of Wikipedia are to the left too. MadMaxDog 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style - I also left this information on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I got your point and composed a reply here, which got lost now, because we had an edit conflict. Okay, I understand your point now. However, I find that this breaks the whole layout (especially the toc right!) for the sake of a minor point. I also disagree with the flipping argument in this case, especially seeing that there is no writing etc in the image at all.
MadMaxDog 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The flipping point is a bit more obscure. In this case, the electronic leads are not symetrical so flipping the image would be misleading. It might not matter to non-medical folks, but I think a somnologist would differ. Rklawton 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- So you think it is better that the article look weird, than that some specialist, if he looked very closely, would find something wrong, but of no account? Excuse me, but I disagree with that weighing of importance. I am trying to find a way around the matter fulfilling the letter of the law, so to speak, but I consider this a wrong emphasis.
- PS I'll also copy this discussion ove to the talk page as you originally suggested.MadMaxDog 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging the redirect for me. I knew moving the page would create a redirect, but as I have just started recent changes patrolling, I had to look up what speedy tag would be most apporiate to use for the new redirect. By the time I'd done that, you had beaten me to it! Anyway, regards. Teiresias84 12:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- And btw looking through the history of my talk page, I am a little confused as to weather it is preferable for to cut and paste or not when userpaging a namespace article? Teiresias84 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your message about speedy tags
Thank you for your question - I have replied on my talk page. By the way, when I clicked on your user name to leave you this message, I noticed your photo gallery link, so I took a look. Your photos are absolutely stunning - I'm sitting here in awe looking at some of these butterflies. Great work! --BigDT 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the Mediation Cabal page regarding my problems with Ultramarine. Did you take a look at the history of the page and the discussion? Ultramarine was--by myself and by a mediator--told to cite information he/she had asserted in the article. The onus is not on me to prove an uncited assertion. It is on the editor who added it to the entry. Period. I suggest you take a closer look. -Dialecticas 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- RE:your refined comments on the Mediation page: Did you take a look at the "citation" that Ultramarine provided? It is from a secondary source providing commentary on the author in question. This certainly, by no standard, is *not* a valid citation. The only thing Ultramarine has provided from the author, Eric Hoffer, is a quote that says, "...nor was Marx a Marxist." This is poor encyclopedia editing, and unacceptable on Wikipedia. Your accusation of POV-pushing on my part is inaccurate and out of line. A strong Criticisms of Marxism article is what is needed, not a weak one. --Dialecticas 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Removing an allegedly weak citation does not make an article stronger. Replacing one citation with a better citation does. Rklawton 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry for not making a discussion before editing the article. As you know, I'm a diehard fan of Abe and I somewhat can't stand the theory that Abe is homosexual. I remove the information because I think the article on his sexuality has violated Wiki's rule original research. Moreover, I myself have made investigation into his life a number of times and I believe it's unnecessary to add such information, because the hypothesis is itself a hypothesis, not mention that it's still controversial. If someday other researchers find evidence which substantiates that the hypothesis is wrong, people who have read the article containing the false theory will have a deviant view on individual Abraham Lincoln. Thus I said that the information hasn't been confirmed, because up till now no one could bear out the veraciousness of the theory. Lastly, I don't want people to have bad impression on Abe (the homosexual thing does spoil his image) since he's my hero. AbelinCAusesobad 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. By the way, I have just made a try to your photo website (lawtonphotos.com) but I can't find any links to other pages except the main page (which has a small picture of a girl, very impressive). I don't know whether there's something wrong with the website. I'm curious to see your photographs ( I must add that I'm a below-amateur level photographer). AbelinCAusesobad 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- About the minor edit: Actually I don't care about the summary (I forget to add info in it) and it automatically appears as "m". Sorry for the slip, I will learn by experience. Thanks for reminding. AbelinCAusesobad 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: MedCab Case: Criticisms of Marxism
I have been advised by the applicant in the Criticisms of Marxism MedCab Case that they do not wish for you to participate in the mediation. I appreciate your desire to participate, but unfortunately, in this case, I will have to ask you to refrain from getting directly involved. You may however choose to contact one of the participants and see if they wish to understand your view point. user:Dialecticas has stated he does not wish to have dialog with you. Thank you for your understanding. Alan.ca 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I jumped in when I saw what I perceived as a clear case of bias. I thought that pointing this out might help the offending party see the error of his ways, so to speak. It rarely works out that way, though, I suppose. Best wishes. Rklawton 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your offer. I appreciate it.Ultramarine 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I just sent you one. alphachimp 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I got the unsourced information from the White House web site, as well as other speeches by politicians. I also used various internet sites as well. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist
I normally don't relist when there is more than 2 votes, because some days people just don't want to to vote and we have to deal with that. But you are welcome to renominate it if you wish. Cbrown1023 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Album Cover (Il Divo - The Christmas Collection
Robert, you said it yourself. The term fair use and the album cover. Those photos are from the CD cover of THE CHRISTMAS COLLECTION at page 2,3,4 and 5 and I have justified it at the photo pages. And that is my point on why they have to be removed. That is why I am asking for a justification from whoever who delete them. Jay 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok now, I am totally lost. Robert, the whole article was written by somebody else and the album cover in the main article has been there for almost 2 years. The main page photo is the article for the whole group, name IL DIVO. Almost all singer’s articles in Wikipedia are using album covers and if it is not allowed, please make it fair to all of us, remove ALL in Wikipedia, not only Il Divo! My earlier argument was referring to the members pages (4 members – Carlos, Sebastian, Urs and David) when the photos were removed even I have noted that they were scanned from the album cover. After I asked for your justification for the photos in the members page, you made it worst by removing the album cover in the main page that has been there for almost 2 years? Are you telling me that Wikipedia does not allow photos from the album cover? Please answer this, if your answer is “Yes, Wikipedia does not allow photo from album cover”, please go to other singers articles and do the same like what you did in Il Divo’s article. - Jay 06:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Link
Hey , thanks for the link .Hahahaha1 03:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot==
-
- Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just trying to be as big of a pain in the ass as you are sir. I am of the belief that the people who have a lot of chatter on their talk pages are one of two kinds of users: 1) very helpful and are getting praised us such or 2) a real pain in the ass and are getting praised as such. I'd be easily persuaded to think you're #2 based on the negative/leaning towards negative comments that you have received on your talk page. But hey, don't you go changin' - it makes for fun posting. WWRD - What Would Rklawton Delete? --Slyder Pilot 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I frankly don't care if you have that warning there or not, but if you delete yours then leave mine alone. If you leave it, then fine, remind me of my deletions. --Slyder Pilot 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather drastic gutting of photgraphs without warninng, I think. The two of Talitha Getty herself (which are difficult enough to find anyway) were deliberatley mere fragments of much larger images. I suppose the fact they are about 40 years old is irrelevant, bit it might have been helpful to have had sime discussion about whether there was some alterntaive fair use definition. I appreciate that there have to be rule about this of thing, but they could perhaps be policed a little more thoughfully. 86.135.23.185 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- To what end? Is there some doubt about whether or not these images violated copyrights? Rklawton 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
emm...sorry but it's not true you didn't add any images...compare in the Sébastien Izambard article your revision as of 00:42, 29 January 2007 to the previous one by me as of 00:41, 29 January 2007. Second, I'm the main author of that article (I unstubbed it a long time ago) and have been adding info. since about one year ago. The fact that I don't properly cite my sources doesn't mean the article has only one source. My sources are the mags, tv interviews, and random info. given to the fans at their forum and website...the problem is that I didn't know how important it was to properly reference articles at Wikipedia until a couple of months ago and at Il Divo's forum normally the fans don't cite their sources properly (they will show a scanned page of a magazine usually when they want to inform the rest of us of something) and most information is posted for only one week so now it's impossible for me to locate the old scans and quote them. The fact that I can't prove what I say doesn't mean it isn't true, please assume good faith on my part and remove the "one source" tag. Rosa 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the tag that asks for references to be added would be more accurate...as it is now it looks as if I have lifted the article from a single place, which isn't true.Rosa 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, there isn't a tag which says "I really really honestly used sources, but I just didn't list them so could you find them for me", but there's one that asks for references to be added to an article. Also, I've never asked anyone else to find any references for me; I chose to leave a message at your page instead of changing the template myself in order to explain the situation and prevent any misunderstandings. The issue is simple: the original sources I got the info. from for this article can't be found...although I think other, newer sources, could be cited (even if those aren't the ones I used)...I'll be searching them shortly.
- I don't know if you're aware of this but you should really moderate the way you express yourself towards other wikipedians. On good faith, I'm assuming you don't really mean to be rude towards me but please do not use a judgmental tone in your future edits to me (if there's need for any). For further info. on this please see Wikipedia:Civility. Rosa 01:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice too. :)Rosa 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets keep the conversation at Talk:Lincoln Thompson, SqueakBox 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Il Divo-Seb-David-Carlos-Ur Photos
My own video/photos taken from the concert on 18 Jan in Singapore using my Sony cybershot by my aunt. And later on, I snapshot the video to photo using Microsoft Movie Maker in my PC. FYI, I am mixed Singaporean/Malaysian living in Kuala Lumpur. You would not find the photo or video anywhere unless for those who went to the concert and sat in the 1st and 2nd row (right) during the concert - Jay 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the photo is a bit blur. The lighting is bad, besides it was edited from a video using a digi cam. - Jay 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- In comparison to other fan-photos, this one really stands out. Rklawton 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was told that this photograph was part of an album artwork. However, I recently found out it is not true. I changed it to logo because I thought it was the one that said something like: "...is a press photo that is used to show the image of the band". Sorry if I caused confusion with those labels. However, since I cannot find a way to know the templates for image description, I do not really know which one to use. Could you send me a copy of the labels that might apply to Image:KyoBand.jpg and tell me which templates to use in that case? Thanks in advance, Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! :) Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice you tagged this article as having only one source? Did you mean the liner notes or the billboard charts? If you're unhappy with the lack of information, maybe a different template would be more appropriate? -Freekee 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that the single source you mentioned was Billboard magazine, for the chart data. But there are really two sources, since the personnel, track listing and other details were taken from the album itself. It looks to me that a bigger problem is that there is very little information in the article at all. It's a borderline stub. I say borderline because it does have a fairly complete infobox, a track listing, a personnel section and chart data. It's only missing descriptive text. Maybe I'm a little confused. Let me cut to the chase. Could you please explain your reasoning for tagging it so? -Freekee 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. The tag says, This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. To me, this implies that only one source was used to compose the article, but from your explanation, I gather you are dissatisfied that the source (Billboard) was not cited. If this is the case, {{fact}} added to the top of the "Charts" section might be more appropriate. However, I think it's fairly obvious that the chart info came from Billboard Magazine. So I'm not sure if that info really needs to be cited. Or is there something else you were getting at? I don't mean to be such a pain about this, but I don't think the tag is warranted, but I don't like deleting other people's work without an understanding. -Freekee 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
In the legal context from which this language is derived, "identification and critical commentary" represent separate rationales for fair use, either of which may be sufficient, depending on the context. Would you imagine that an image does not meet fair use criteria if it critically comments on but does not identify a subject? If it's impossible to critically comment on a subject without identifying it, why is identification mentioned in the first place? The main legal test for fair use is whether the use unfairly infringes on the economic rights of the copyright holder--and WP is in no way competing with Fox by posting a miniscule screenshot from its half-hour-long program. Nareek 05:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Identification is not decoration. See Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Identification. Nareek 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote based on the proposal I made? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Frontier for details. --Richard 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks!--Vox Rationis 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I 'spose it's time for me to get with the program (or template). I've been editing long enough... Rklawton 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I've got some more questions on this article. Why is it tagged as having an unreliable source? Are artists official sites usually tagged as unreliable? And also tagged as having a single source when tons of album pages have no sources. As I said on the articles talk page, I'm slightly confused. Bigdottawa 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Artists can say anything they want about themselves in their own websites. We're looking for verifiable information. Therefore, we prefer information from independent sources. Yes, it's always useful to include the artist's website in their articles, but it's not wise to rely entirely upon these sources. Artist/album/song articles are no exception.
- I see your point about tons of album articles having no sources. That's entirely inappropriate as it violates WP:V, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Any article without sources should be tagged accordingly.
- I think what is confusing you, and justifiably so, is that you have been reading a lot of very low quality album articles, and you are perceiving these to be the norm. The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia makes no special exceptions for album articles. They either conform to Wikipedia's policies, or they get tagged accordingly in hopes that an editor will come along and spruce them up a bit. Rklawton 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is still making no sense. If an official site can't be used as a proper source for a track listing, what can be? These tags are ridiculous, and it makes the article look ridiculous. Bigdottawa 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources make a lot of sense. Have you read them? I left a longer reply on your talk page. Rklawton 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Commons Picture of the Year competition
Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rklawton,
Thank you for your help in editing the Harvest article. I'll try to find another image for the infobox.
I appreciate your time,
Jamie L. 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. It's one of the most complete band article I've reviewed lately. I've posted lots of "expand" and "reference" tags lately. Rklawton 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Thanks for reminding me
At first, I had no idea what you were talking about when you referred to album covers on my user page, and then I remembered a subpage I had briefly created just to get a table formatted right. So, thanks for reminding me, and I went ahead and deleted them. --Joelmills 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I should have provided a link. Cheers, Rklawton 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Changes made to Identity Theft
Hi,
I'm wondering why the changes I made to "Identity Theft" were removed. The information is the latest available, and based on the most comprehensive survey of ID fraud out there (more than 5,000 U.S. adults, representative of the U.S. census, were interviewed via phone). It's also the most quoted resource of its kind (AP, WSJ, Dow Jones, Finextra, NPR, Reuters, UPI, Forbes, Fortune, Business Week, NY Times, USA Today, and many other major news sources and publications.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rachelgkim (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
As requested, this is now userfied to your sandbox. If all you want is a userfied copy, you can just ask at deletion review's content review section, either by editing its inclusion on the main page or directly at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review. GRBerry 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do that next time. Cheers, Rklawton 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Album notability guidlines
With reference to a recent Afd regarding whether albums are notable enough (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Side_Show_Freaks). I have created a proposed guidline for addition to WP:MUSIC in my user space which can be found here; User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album). I would welcome your comments on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) where I have left a thread. Regards RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments, I've now changed charted in any national music chart to charted in any national weekly music chart. Regarding the gold status, I think we should leave that how it is because thats the same as notability guidlines for an artist inclusion - and lets face it, if it reaches gold status in any county it should warrant inclusion!! I've also attached your comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) where its being discussed (I hope you don't mind!). Thanks again RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Template substitution
As a matter of fact, there is: Wikipedia:Template substitution. —tregoweth (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: General of the Armies edit
Why did you revert this page back to erroneous information? Congress does not appoint officers; only the President does. Furthermore, my post was accurate, especially considering the specific language of the act which authorized the President to appoint George Washington as General of the Armies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slyjackalope (talk • contribs) 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Re: Lisa Nowak
Thank you for the compliment! This is a bit of a new thing for me, too; I usually don't work on current events articles. Trying to keep all the balls in the air with only two hands, two feet and one keyboard is an interesting experience... Cheers. --Plek 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Image source
Yes I was assuming the image was an accurate rendition of the album cover therefore the source was the album cover though I assume it may have been lifted from a web site not a direct photo but does it matter if we allow fair use of album covers and there is nothing else in the image ... Trying to do my bit for the speedy deltion backlog but not wanting to delete images which probably could stay. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: 2067 citation request
Hi, you tagged an article (2067 (album)) with a citation request. I had recently added to it and I'm fairly new to this so I'm wondering what I might do to meet the requirements for citation. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers Strobilus 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi and welcome. You'll find citation information here: WP:REF. Rklawton 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've skimmed through that page before but I'll take a closer look. My addition to the page was the album cover, which I think I sourced properly, and the album chronology. So was it my contribution that prompted the tag or is the tag directed at the article in general? Thanks again Strobilus 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Question for you
Hi, I see you recently edited my talk page. I was wondering what prompted you to do so. I see you're a photographer, was it one of my photos? Eric.frederich 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't take that photo of the dragonfly. I just edited the page and placed a link to macro photography. I do have some nice pictures of dragonflys though. This one is probably my favorite. dragonfly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric.frederich (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Re: Good luck
What about this photo for Sexual Objectification? http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/17588/ I hope you have better luck than I did on that page, although I do think there were some valid points against my photo. But I find it odd that there are editors on that page who simply find it too difficult to find an accurate representation of "sex object" in an image, or how women/men are turned into such without much concern for their personality. But isn't that Ms. Korea photo pretty good? --DavidShankBone 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Korean image is great! I like the wet-t image because it also plays into the harms associated with sexual objectification. Bars, beer, wet t-shirts all serve to increase violence against women. The link between pageants and violence is less obvious. Rklawton 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree - I sheepishly admit I got a laugh out of the Korean photo. I'd never submit it. lol. --DavidShankBone 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
excuse me, where do I put pictures...if I can put any at all? um...i didn't do it... 14:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- We can not put fair use images on user pages. WP:FUC explains where we can properly use these images. Rklawton 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
alright, thank you!
um...i didn't do it... 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Why are you taggin The Cleopatra page
What is wrong with it? And why does it concern you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.191.69 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
- Wikipedia has standards regarding reliable sources WP:RS and verifiability WP:V, and the article, as written, fails both of these. Rklawton 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So what source would you like to see to verify these fact. Everything written about Cleopatra on that page is things they've done and acheived. Its a small page about Cleopatra not the beetles!
- If it is that small, and if the article can not meet Wikipedia's standards, then perhaps it shouldn't be an article. Rklawton 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they have their own page stating what they have acheived? What doesn;t meet the standards? I don;t even know what source you want.
- As I suggested above, read WP:RS and WP:V and you'll have the answers to your questions. Rklawton 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I did.. don't be difficult! What is it you think needs a source. The external links are not the sources
- I don't see any other sources listed in the article, and that causes problems with WP:V. Rklawton 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how can citing an artists' official website be considered citing a self-published source? Surely the vast majority of reliable info on a singer (in most cases) is likely to be on their own website? Chwech 19:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Happy Feb 12
 |
 Dear Rklawton/Archive 1 |
You deleted a picture I added to the photographer article, the reason: non-ilustrative vanity image. Could you explain me why a close up of a photographer is not ilustrative for this article?. Thanks. Wikifrikiuser 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page and in the article talk page. Rklawton 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied back. Wikifrikiuser 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Vanity: Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. So in this case it's your excessive belief in you ability to take photographs and your way of judging others'. The term is right. By the way, you violated WP:CIVIL: Judgmental tone in edit summaries. That's how it all started.Wikifrikiuser 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see. So you post a self-portrait taken with a mirror and then your feelings were hurt because I noted it was a vanity photo in the edit summary? If nothing else, at least your funny. Rklawton 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Vanity: Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. So in this case it's your excessive belief in you ability to take photographs and your way of judging others'. The term is right. By the way, you violated WP:CIVIL: Judgmental tone in edit summaries. That's how it all started.Wikifrikiuser 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied back. Wikifrikiuser 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Bill Clinton Candidacy & Presidency a "Trivial event"???==
I see you deleted this entry on November 23, 2006, for denoting a "trivial event"--
- ( October 3 ) 1991 - Arkansas governor Bill Clinton declares candidacy for President of the United States.
I take it you're a Republican? 70.243.229.87 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- We don't list election results in event sections in date articles, so why would we list candidacy declarations? Rklawton 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Numerous other "This day in history" lists, such as by the World Almanac & other almanacs published for decades, do include election results (e.g. Kennedy elected November 8, 1960, Lincoln re-elected November 8, 1864), and the formal announcement-of-candidacy for those who did become Presidents of the United States is crucial information to the analysis of their political careers--the type of information people access Wikipedia for in the first place. I added that entry last October 3 because I went to confirm for purposes of my own research that he declared on October 3, 1991 and not October 2, 1991, and was suprised and puzzled there was no mention of it. So I researched, found the exact date, and added it. Evidently you ARE a Republican, because your pal's mention of Abraham Lincoln is a standard Republican gesture...while Abe Lincoln was a Republican in name, however, I've heard many political analysts tend to agree he would be considered a Democrat today, and not accept the Republican platform. But that's a different story. For now, I take it very personally that a key event in Bill Clinton's career AND the history of the U.S., is being deleted because someone considers it "trivial." On the plus side, I do agree with your deletion of the Canadian(?) political event, and the Giants game. 70.248.203.84 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a Republican because of something a reply another editor made? Now where is the logic in that? I understand your reasoning for adding Clinton to the article. I'm not faulting it. It's just at odds with what we use as criteria for inclusion in this section for this type of article. I'm curious, why the paranoia regarding party affiliation? And does this paranoia speak well for whatever party you represent? Rklawton 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
NO, MY INSINUATION WAS THAT YOU'RE EVIDENTLY A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE YOU KEEP DELETING AN IMPORTANT ENTRY ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, FOR REASONS THAT DON'T HOLD WATER. THE DATE OF CLINTON'S DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY IN EARLY OCTOBER 1991 IS GREATER IN UNIQUENESS AND IMPORTANCE THAN THE DATES OF REGULAR NATIONWIDE ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS IN THE FIRST PART OF NOVEMBER (DUH!). AND WHY THE "PARANOIA" ON YOUR PART, ABOUT AN IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT A RECENT TWO-TERM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEING INCLUDED IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIC TIMELINE? TALK ABOUT PROJECTION -- DISAGREEING OVER AN EDIT IS NOT PARANOIA ON MY PART, AND YOU'RE PROVING TO BE MERELY EGOTISTICAL ABOUT THIS...TWICE LABELING SOMEONE "PARANOID" BECAUSE HE OR SHE DISAGREES WITH YOU ABOUT AN EDIT IS CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN ADMINISTRATOR, AND MORE SERIOUS A VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY THAN A REVERT WAR. AS FOR YOUR THREAT TO BAN MY I.P. FOR REVERTING YOUR REPEATED DELETION/VANDALISM OF MY EDIT, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE MATTER? 70.248.203.84 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given that I've removed presidential election results from all parties in all elections (U.S., Canadian, Australian, and others), I don't see how you can infer any affiliation at all. Next, routine elections are specifically proscribed from "days of the year" articles in the project's charter. Removing them is simply a matter of housekeeping for this project. If you find other election-related events, you're welcome to remove those as well. On a side note, I don't believe I've ever used the word "paranoid" in any of my edits on Wikipedia, let alone one relating to you. Perhaps other people have used this word in reference to you instead? Lastly, you'll want to review WP:CIVIL to gain a better understanding of appropriate behavior here at Wikipedia. Rklawton 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Note to Rklawton: the entry for October 3, 1991: "Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton declares candidacy for U.S. President" --isn't describing an election or election results, routine or otherwise. So why do you keep referring to it as a "routine election?" You wrote: "If you find other election-related events, you're welcome to remove those as well." Well guy, I won't take you up on your offer, because I enjoy freedom of information, not blatant censorship. 70.248.203.84 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Declaring candidacy is all part of the election routine. In fact, it's a rather trivial part - winning being the most significant event. Indeed, this date is so trivial, that it's not even mentioned in Bill Clinton's article at all. Rklawton 13:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I found this person on IMDb and fleshed out the article. I removed the speedy tag because the person does exist. If you feel that the person isn't notable enough (which she may well not be) feel free to prod. I won't stand in your way. IrishGuy talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. I followed available links and found nothing. You dug further - as I should have. Rklawton 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all. Frankly, the user who created that article has been making a lot of them. I tagged one because the person had only appeared in four episodes of a tv series and has no other credits. I haven't looked into the others yet. Feel free to if you have the time. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like they're good-faith efforts. I'll look into them later in the evening. Rklawton 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all. Frankly, the user who created that article has been making a lot of them. I tagged one because the person had only appeared in four episodes of a tv series and has no other credits. I haven't looked into the others yet. Feel free to if you have the time. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Rfa
Hi, I was just wondering if you'd though about running for adminship? If you had, I'd be happy to nominate you - you do great wikipedia work and deserve the mop RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, glad you ejoyed it. I'm tired of this strange trend towards revisionist history. Anyways, could you review the page history and revert to a less white-washed version? thanks. ThuranX 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Rklawton 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please continue to keep an eye on the article, as he continues to redact the information about Ford's anti-semitism. His latest tactic, which i've removed, is to insert the word 'alleges' or some conjugate thereof for anythign said by others about Ford's attitudes. Highly distressing when the previous word for 'speak' was'remarked', which is far more synonymous with' verbally communicated' than 'opined'. ThuranX 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- He's gone into really weird territory now, and I oculd use some backup. He's not claiming that in addition to our article being POV, it's being written by those with an anti-American agenda. His last response reads like a conspiracy theory. I'm going to leave the page for a while to let him cool off, so if someoen else isn't catching his edits, they'll wind up sticking. ThuranX 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. ThuranX 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- All I want to do is stick with the historians - however that falls out. Personally, I'd love to think of Henry as a big Boy Scout, that George really did chop down a cherry tree, and that ol'e Abe was indeed honest. However, when I look to encyclopedia articles, I expect to find ideas and information that go a little deeper than high school textbooks. Rklawton 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- that's what I want as well. It just shakes out that his foibles were significant and notable. ThuranX 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- All I want to do is stick with the historians - however that falls out. Personally, I'd love to think of Henry as a big Boy Scout, that George really did chop down a cherry tree, and that ol'e Abe was indeed honest. However, when I look to encyclopedia articles, I expect to find ideas and information that go a little deeper than high school textbooks. Rklawton 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. ThuranX 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- He's gone into really weird territory now, and I oculd use some backup. He's not claiming that in addition to our article being POV, it's being written by those with an anti-American agenda. His last response reads like a conspiracy theory. I'm going to leave the page for a while to let him cool off, so if someoen else isn't catching his edits, they'll wind up sticking. ThuranX 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please continue to keep an eye on the article, as he continues to redact the information about Ford's anti-semitism. His latest tactic, which i've removed, is to insert the word 'alleges' or some conjugate thereof for anythign said by others about Ford's attitudes. Highly distressing when the previous word for 'speak' was'remarked', which is far more synonymous with' verbally communicated' than 'opined'. ThuranX 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
More than 60% of my text has been quoted from or is based on linked articles of this Wikipedia. I have quoted also http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/heid-a03.shtml, but the Martin Heidegger article contains comparable informations.Xx236 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to appologize for the vandalizing i did on the main page. thank you for stoping me. 216.185.176.130 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Help on Recent Edit
Hi. I was editing Kamran Jawaid, when you tagged it as a Articles_lacking_sources_from_February_2007. There are a few resources available on the person, and since I just started out on editing wikipedia, I might need a little help pulling it off. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R craycroft (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I have a couple of questions:
1 - After I finished putting in the data, I did a search for the person's name with wikipedia (eg: Kamran Jawaid + wikipedia), but I couldn't find any link which referred be back to wikipedia. How is that accomplished?
2 - Also, how can we put in categories, which are mostly found on the bottom of the pages, to the page? I have been finding it a little difficult to add and remove categories. I would like to add the following categories at the footer: film critic, critical theory, [1], [2].
3 - I have a saved page from the official website of Kamran Jawaid, where he discusses all the categories in the article, but since then the site has been taken down. It will be back up again on a new-domain, which I confirmed from the direct source. Would this make the topic free from citation or should we wait until the official website is back up again?—Preceding unsigned comment added by R craycroft (talk • contribs)
Thanks a lot. Will look you up if I bump into any other problems. R. Craycroft 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad I could help. Rklawton 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as the hook knife refrence. I was under the impression it applied to HALO jumps in general. There's no skydiving reason to carry a knife. None. So it needs to be removed entirely.
BASE jumping does not fall into the same catagory. I was in the process of gathering sources when you reverted it. If you are going to include BASE jumping then you need to include paragliding. I never made any changed to malfuctions accident rates ect so I'm not doing someone else's homework.
As far as my experience, I have four years in 600 jumps and am in the process of becoming the S & TA for my DZ. I have a coaches rating and am getting ready to take my rigger's exam.
Mostly I removed un-cited and slanderous statement from the safety secitonRWgirl 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Rklawton 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Never had anyone comment so I apologise if this was the wrong place to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWgirl (talk • contribs)
- "First" time, hmmm? No worries. Article-specific stuff should go on the article's talk page. Anything else can pretty much go anywhere else - whatever works. Rklawton 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
DeKalb
Thanks for chiming in, check my talk page. There are articles on this arcade I just don't think they are non trivial, along the lines of this place is opening, it is a new business. I think that User:JazzButcher is going to attempt to use them as sources to proclaim the landmark status of the arcade. This, I am certain wouldn't qualify. Am I wrong? Introduction of this information into DeKalb, Illinois would make an already badly in need of clean up article all the worse. A mcmurray 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be awesome if you could post your last comment to me on the DeKalb talk page and on JazzButcher's talk page.A mcmurray 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
hello. ive left this message on A mcmurray's discussion page and, since you are now a part of this, decided to leave it on yours as well.
I still fail to realize how this does not qualify as an attraction...
It is something that is out-of-the-ordinary and is hard to come by (well, at least it is for me seeing as how this arcade is the only one of it's kind within hundreds of miles of my location).
I can see how it isn't a landmark, but the original category title wasn't just about landmarks, it was about points of interest/attractions as well.
Now please, if you wish to get back into this debate that you have started, explain why this would not qualify as an attraction even with 2 different articles about it published.
thank you.
JazzButcher 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll reply on the article's talk page momentarily. Rklawton 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Rfa
Sorry for the late reply, I've been so busy this weedend. Well, with regards to civility I think its good your making an active step to calm it down, at Rfa, the fact that your trying to improve will be looked upon favourably. I think your main plus is that you actively participate in AfD's. Personally I think your ready now, but if you want to wait then thats fine by me. Let me know when you want to run and I'd be more than happy to put a co-nom in with Alphchimp RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
yep I do. But i am mad and i am kinda not sober. sorry. i hate that guy. damn it.User:A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- man dont think less of me. I am so mad. and a bit intoxicated. I just love the Wiki. Thats all.User:A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I cant unwatch it, I live here, for now, man. You know I dont stoop to their level, normally. I just happened to drink and just happened to be pissed. Man. I suck.User:A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will sleep it off now and be happy in the morn though that will do little to repair what i have done with jazzbutcher, damn, i do suck.User:A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Everyone has a bad day now and then. Don't let it get you down. Rklawton 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
spammer guy
hey buddy. im not some fly-by-night spamming guy. i use wikipedia for everything and finally started TRYING to contribute. i just really wanted to see star worlds arcade get what it deserved, you know? its a fine establishment and the owner is a great guy. would be nice to have it under attractions on wikipedia.
so, just out of curiousity, since changing the mind of the guy who clearly wants it to never be on that page is not going to work, who can i talk to on wikipedia to see if it can be featured on the dekalb wikipedia page?
i appreciate the help and civility. JazzButcher 08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have pictures of the Springfield area by chance? We are trying to expand that area, and wanted to see if we can find people who live nearby if they have any or could take any. St. Louis isn't exactly close, but figured I would ask if you have any.--Kranar drogin 12:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting back to you so slowly. Well, basically we are going to possibly need pictures of the city skeyline if possible, all the schools, the Capital township building, Springfield Memorial Medical Center and St. John's Hospital, Illinois Superem Court building, and Lake Springfield. Don't know if we can do this or not, but the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport would be cool too. Pretty much anything on the Springfield page that has a link, I would like to have at least one picture of. I know this is a lot of work, but whatever you could get would be great.--Kranar drogin 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- We need what is noted above, plus (for articles, main article Springfield and future articles):
City Water, Light & Power - Dana-Thomas House - Illinois General Assembly - Illinois State Fair - Maid-Rite Sandwich Shop - Lake Springfield - Lanphier High School - Lincoln Land Community College - Lutheran High School (Springfield, Illinois) - Memorial Medical Center (Springfield, Illinois) - Reisch Beer - Sacred Heart-Griffin High School - Southeast High School (Springfield, Illinois) - Springfield College (Illinois) - Springfield High School (Illinois) - Springfield (Illinois) Mass Transit District - St. John's Hospital (Springfield, Illinois) - Ursuline Academy (Illinois). As well as images for Culture and sports in Springfield, Illinois.
Culture would be music and film I guess. Performing arts will probably be a separate section eventually and will need its own images, stage, live music etc (as I am certain you realize). I realize the state fair isn't until later on, but some good images of the fairgrounds could suffice until we could actually get you or another Wikipedian to go to the fair and shoot it. Sports, I think we are just looking at the Springfield Jr. Blues, unless you happened to have anything associated with their past minor league franchises. The Illinois General Assembly request is there because all we have is the dome. It would be most excellent if we had something of the legislature actually in session, for a gallery link to commons. I know this is a lot and understand if you can't get to all of it, but any little bit will surely help. IvoShandor 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, if you wanted, you could shoot any of the sites on this list in Springfield too. : ) IvoShandor 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sorry to heap all this onto you, and if I am down that way, which is a distinct possibility given the soon to be warmer weather, I will try to knock some of it out too. Thanks, by the way and I know the weather will get better, I just know it. IvoShandor 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Want to give you this FYI also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Collaboration. So we can discuss what we would like to expand on if you are willing.--Kranar drogin 05:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Vanishing October 5 Deaths
It was the "-->" remark closing tag that did that. Since that was removed from the "Births" section, then next closing remark tag was the one after the "Deaths" section. It happened with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_5&oldid=111162216 edit. In case you really wanted to know :-D -- Borameer ™ 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey
Finally getting around to your message. I think you probably shoulda skipped the mention of 'vanity' and just gone on artistic grounds, or the fact that there are 100's of photographer self portraits to choose from and that is not the best one. As soon as there is argument over the use of images in an article I take it to the talk page, it's not a big deal if an ugly photo stays up for a few days. You could have probably skipped your last post on his page as well, it didn't do anything to improve the situation. I think you are getting close to being admin material, but you need to take things less personally. Section 6 from this article may help, I read it the other day and thought it was a really good way to detach oneself from certain situations. [3] -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very cool article. I'm going to save it. I contribute to textbooks from time to time, and point #1 reflects a long-standing practice of mine. Point #6 reflects something I need to work on. Thanks for your feedback. I hope the new baby thing is working out well for you. Enjoy it, they grow up fast. Rklawton 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Skydiving "typo"
This seems to be a blatant attempt at vandalism, this can be proved by the fact that the "N" key and "R" key are on different sides of the keyboard, I would be interested in your opinions on this. Thanks 1B6 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a little self-tooting my horn
I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave (PS - I see you got as far as I did on Sexual objectificatio - hahaha - crazy, right?) --DavidShankBone 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
East brunswick NJ Pub Safety
you would think he'd at least spell it right the second time. ThuranX 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- And, can we get a WP:SNOW early close? LOL. ThuranX 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone edit my page?
when I clicked on my name some random thing about kwame popped up. WTF? me > you 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Malik1
- SOMEONE JUST CHANGED IT AGAIN WTF me > you 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Malik1
- Thank you me > you 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Malik`
- SOMEONE JUST CHANGED IT AGAIN WTF me > you 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Malik1
Howdy and thanks
Thanks for the metadata tip. I have to admit I don't know how to do what you suggest, though. But thanks for that link - I originally start photographing for Wikipedia because I fell in love with how people collaborated to form a consensual sense of what is and is not true, real, etc. I will never forget when the 2006 Qana Airstrike page took off its dispute tag. I was like, Wow! Jews, Muslims, Americans, Arabs, what have you, can come to some kind of agreement to say, at the very least, "this is what happened, no doubt." I noticed there were few photographs on the pages, and I had a new camera, so I started to carry it around. It was also a good way to contribute value while rarely involving myself in editing arguments (although I still sometimes get trapped - sexual objectification, for example). I'm not so good at keeping my emotions out of my arguments, and I try to stick to photos. Anyway, since I started (last July) I now like to watch and track my photos, more so to see how WP can be used. I also hope I contribute photos of decent enough quality that those who can't afford Getty Images rates, et. al., can turn to the site to find photographic representation of whatever they need. Who knows if that will catch on anytime soon, but I hope so. Anyway, thanks for the links, advice and good words. Dave --DavidShankBone 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
I'd like to nominate you for WP:RFA. You ready? -Ravedave 04:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tuesday would work better for my schedule. Rklawton 05:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tuesday it is. You may want to start pondering the questions on Template:RfA and read the current nominations on WP:RFA to see what questions you may be asked. -Ravedave 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Images
Hi Robert, thank you for the message. Concerning the second image, I'll contact the uploader for the source. I'm looking forward to your RfA! :) - Anas Talk? 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I see you've already tagged the image. I'll just leave the uploader a message then. Thanks. - Anas Talk? 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
James Buchanan Page
Your input is requested at the Talk:James Buchanan page. The problem is that people are arguing for the inclusion of VERY poorly sourced material in the article. I'd appreciate your input, as you seemed very level-headed in your initial comments on that page.K. Scott Bailey 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Submitted for RFA
- Are you done with your questions, so the nomination can be posted? People seem to be supporting you already :) -Ravedave 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. How do they look to you? I would find it easy to add pages of thoughts, but I'm thinking most folks wouldn't really want to read through it all. Rklawton 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good, you going to respond to the general comment/neutrals? -Ravedave 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. How do they look to you? I would find it easy to add pages of thoughts, but I'm thinking most folks wouldn't really want to read through it all. Rklawton 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
New NRHP Collaboration Division
(Message generated via copy and paste, sorry to be impersonal but I am hitting up all members of the project. But hi there, how's the Rfa?} Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division
I am pretty sure you know this but . . .
Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done on passing your RfA with 89% support - that's a great achievement! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you have any questions about using them then please ask and I will do my best to answer. Good luck and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! No doubt I'll have a lot of questions, too. I was never much of a "direction reader" - until I started skydiving. Now I even read the instructions on the back of toothpaste tubes - just in case. Rklawton 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats Rklawton!
Though I haven't had many dealings with you (and, in fact, you got me 24 hour banned for 3RR), I think you'll make a great admin, which is why I gave such full-throated support in your RfA. People probably think we're friends from way back or something, based on how I supported your candidacy. Wouldn't it be funny if people knew the truth, that my first experience with you was being reported by you for 3RR?!? :) K. Scott Bailey 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was my pleasure! And I'm just glad such a deserving candidate made it through.
- BTW, if you have a chance, could you take a look at the discussion on the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, regarding the mini-controversy about the Chacor RfA discussion page? It's regarding some comments I left there as an extension and expansion of my vote to oppose. The thread I created was blanked repeatedly by three separate editors (tag-teaming, maybe?), placing me at risk of 3RR. Finally, the thread was blanked AGAIN, and the page immediately protected to enforce the blanking. I protested on the BN, because it was there that someone had requested it be protected. The famed SlimVirgin just weighed in against me, citing an ESSAY entitled "Don't be a dick", which I felt was completely inappropriate. If you review it, and find that I was in fact being a "dick" or that I somehow violated protocol, please let me know. I feel I can trust you to be fair, and would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. If you don't want to dive into the middle of the discussin there, perhaps you could communicate through my discussion page, if you have the time.
- Anyways, congrats again on your well-deserved adminship!K. Scott Bailey 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fully understand why you are not getting involved. It seems quite apparent that I've stumbled into the middle of a beehive of a clique. Good luck with the tools, RKL!K. Scott Bailey 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been in meetings and working on a project. I'll take a look, but it'll have to be later tonight. Rklawton 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll completely understand if you want to steer clear. It seems I've unintentionally stirred up a real hornet's nest here, and I don't want you to have to get in the middle of it if you don't have to.K. Scott Bailey 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I read through the RfA, the RfA's talk page, the deleted thread, and the thread on the notice board. Assuming there's nothing else, I'm pretty clear on what happened. First, listen to Taxman, he seems to have a really level head about all this and probably has a lot more experience than I. Second, the lesson to learn from this, having just experienced it myself, is that RfAs are highly personal. Most folks who accept an RfA nomination have put a significant amount of time and thought into their contributions. As a result, all comments for, against, or neutral cut to the core. Next, don't agitate the non-existent cabal. If they existed, they wouldn't like it ;). Lastly, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I don't know if I've been helpful in this response, but thinking through these issues really helped me sort out my feelings regarding the RfA process. Please don't hesitate to ask me for a hand in the future. Rklawton 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to understand what I did wrong in the initial phases of the conflict. I didn't post any personal attacks on him, just my feelings on why I couldn't support any future RfAs regarding him. I honestly don't know where else I could have put my thoughts on the matter. I appreciate your taking a look at it though.K. Scott Bailey 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as "wrong" goes, it was just a matter of sensitivity to the nominee and not a policy or guideline violation (per Taxman). Is there a rule that says you have to be sensitive? I don't know of one. Is there a rule about deleting topical threads from talk pages. Yes. However, I think you could have achieved the same objective by holding off until the former nominee's next (if any) RfA. Assuming you haven't changed your mind, you'll want to do that anyway – thereby making the edits in current dispute redundant. Rklawton 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to understand what I did wrong in the initial phases of the conflict. I didn't post any personal attacks on him, just my feelings on why I couldn't support any future RfAs regarding him. I honestly don't know where else I could have put my thoughts on the matter. I appreciate your taking a look at it though.K. Scott Bailey 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been in meetings and working on a project. I'll take a look, but it'll have to be later tonight. Rklawton 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fully understand why you are not getting involved. It seems quite apparent that I've stumbled into the middle of a beehive of a clique. Good luck with the tools, RKL!K. Scott Bailey 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heard about your being promoted to an administrator, well....congratulations!
It is a big duty but I am sure you will do your best, we often do not agree on things, and thats for sure, but want to wish you well and best regards, I even enclose here a 2 min funny as all git out blooper vid, found online for your amusement! ttyl, peace friend! http://thewikipediahallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/04/xena-laugh-out-loud-bloopers-1995-2001.html cathytreks 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Grats! It's pretty cool that I welcomed you and submitted you to RFA, when can I submit you for beurocratship? :) -Ravedave 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You first. Rklawton 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll stick to editing WP for *fun* :) -Ravedave 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You first. Rklawton 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats
From ObiClownKemosabe!!! Ronbo76 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- From me to, you really deserve it - have fun with the tools! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Rklawton 17:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- And congratulations from me too... The Rambling Man 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give it my best shot. 30 minutes and no screw-ups so far (actually, I haven't even taken a wrapper off the box let alone read the instructions yet). Cheers, Rklawton 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats! I wish I could have nominated you like we talked about, but I'm glad that you got the position. alphachimp 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you tagged this image as "orphaned, fair use", but the copyright applied isn't a fair use copyright. Thoughts? Rklawton 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake I was just trying to tag it as orphaned since it was replaced by this [4] image. I can put it through the IFD process if you think that would be better. SirGrant 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Myspace
Links normally to be avoided section 10. Just following Wiki guide lines. Purgatory Fubar 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Rklawton 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Congratulations on your adminship. Purgatory Fubar 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the My Space link to Julien Aklei is a dead link. Correct me if I am wrong. Purgatory Fubar 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So . . . which do you hate more — "Pi Day" or "Steak and BJ Day"? Either way, excellent job or keeping up with the changes, you're too quick for me! :-D -- Borameer ™ 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- My wife is a mathematician, so I must say I like Pi (though it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the article AfD'd). Gotta run now, you're on your own for a few hours. Rklawton 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Message from Nahid
Congratulations ! You have become an admin. It's my pleasure to meet with an experienced photographer as well as person. Here it is:
 | This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
Thank you :)--NAHID 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Open RfC on Talk:James Buchanan == The people attempting to insert pop history and Salon.com as reliable sources in the Buchanan article have opened an RfC on it. I'd appreciate your participation if you have the time. Thanks.K. Scott Bailey 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll keep an eye on it and add my two bits after things develop. Rklawton 15:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
WikiProject Illinois Barnstar | |
| For your work on Illinois related articles, especially the outstanding images you have contributed here and to the commons, I hereby award you the WikiProject Illinois Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --Dual Freq 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
Re: Where do we report this kind of vitriol? ==
This was posted on Talk:James Buchanan. I was wondering what the procedures for reporting such vitriol were? Here's the direct quote, followed by a link to the diff page.
Wait, did you say Baker is a professor? That type often has a liberal leftist, gay-leaning bent. And, John, aren't Henry Holt Publishers and The New York Times sort of ground-zero of the liberal biased media? Did you say Arthur Schesinger!? Wasn't he a Democrat? It's anyone's guess why they hate America so much. Most of those New York City types of publishers employ open homosexuals so what can you expect? I've just searched the Fox News web site data base and there's absolutely ZERO mention of James Buchanan being one of them homosexuals. And ditto for the Washington Times and National Review. I guess we can put this whole sad James Buchanan homosexualty issue to bed! Just not with a guy. Seriously, if you have citations, put it up. I'm not interested in additional protests of how I miss the point and keeping this out is not the teensiest-weensiest bit homophobic. Spare me.CApitol3 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJames_Buchanan&diff=115598068&oldid=115591581
The editor is clearly engaging in both veiled personal attacks on people who disagree with his/her position, as well as speculations that do not conform with WP:AGF. While it seems to reveal much about the underlying motivations of this user, I find it completely inappropriate for the forum. Your thoughts?K. Scott Bailey 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks to me like an attempt at humor. The nice thing about it is that you don't have to say anything at all. That comments speaks loudly for itself, and no reply is required. Here's something else to consider. At some point a few editors will make a serious attempt to increase the article's classification, and whatever nonsense has been added to the article will be removed at that point. The offending editors, if they're even around to defend their work, will be soundly defeated. Agenda pushing editors usually lose out to the concerted efforts of editors who are working to raise an article's quality. We've got quite a few "Sexuality of..." articles that are the direct result of POV pushers losing out in just this way. Rklawton 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seemed ironic to me that the true colors of the opposition began to shine through in the post where he/she was attempting to point out that the OTHER side was agenda-driven. In my case, it's especially ironic, since I'm a mostly liberal Democrat, who that person is accusing of being homophobic. Honestly, if they can find a scholarly treatment of the material in question, I have no problem including it. They don't believe that this is really my position, but it is. I'm almost to the point where I just say, "Put whatever the hell you want in there" and just remove it from my watchlist. I've grown weary of being insulted.K. Scott Bailey 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair deal. I'll admit that I do growl at some folks more than I should. I agree that he should be encouraged to participate more. I was trying to point that out, but perhaps I was a bit short... Thanks... --Mhking 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
User:RevRagnarok RfA
Re: User:RevRagnarok RfA
You wrote: "Opposing this candidate because he has (as opposed to pushes) a POV is POV pushing." No, it's not when the POV of that user is directed against diversity. The English speaking Wikipedia does not need yet more US centred systemic bias. Supporting that user because of his POV may qualify as POV pushing, not the opposite. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on user's talk page. Rklawton 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weird question. No, but it's not what your voting comment is about ("as opposed to pushes"), nor my above response to it. I'm actually opposing this user on the grounds of the voluntary display of his POV and the way he handles criticism directed against that voluntary display. You can't put a strong POV userbox (like the anti-BE and anti-EU boxes) on your page and expect no negative responses at all. As long as one user doesn't intend on editing articles pertaining to her/his POV, s/he shouldn't put it there. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to be headed to see her. I was wondering, what pics do you think I should get of her? Here is the link Jane (dinosaur).--Kranar drogin 03:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I think that is a bone on her, and there is a bone that has a bur on it they think was cancer that killed her. I saw the Discovery channel bit on her. It was a good one.--Kranar drogin 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: huh
What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EragonFragonGragon (talk • contribs)
Yeah, it looks fine. There is nothing inappropriate. No porn, no violence, no discrimination.
Sorry champ, didn't participate in that a year ago. It good list. looks like lots of —Preceding unsigned comment added by EragonFragonGragon (talk • contribs)
==James Buchanan Re: There is a "vote" going on at Talk:James Buchanan
They're now "voting" on a proposal by one of them regarding reinsertion. I actually made a simple proposal, that--for some reason--was rejected. Your input would be appreciated.K. Scott Bailey 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, Rklawton. I've grown tired of being attacked, and am withdrawing from the debate, and removing James Buchanan from my anti-vandalism watch list. Good luck if you actually enter that debate. They're like sharks on the attack.K. Scott Bailey 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is in the process of being resolved now. If you could take another look, I'd appreciate it.K. Scott Bailey 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Regarding your comment on Talk:James Buchanan ==
(I'm posting my thoughts here as well as there, since I don't know if you're watching that page.) Are you then in opposition to my current proposed paragraph? If so, I'd encourage you to take a look at my analysis of the sources available on Buchanan. The only one that seems clearly agenda-driven is Loewen. And two of the three other books that discuss Buchanan delve into the speculation about he and King. If you'd like, you could go down to your library when you get the chance and take a look for yourself. I've become convinced that the speculation is widespread enough to at least merit mention, but should not be given undue weight by the implication that there's evidence supporting the speculation.K. Scott Bailey 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Question on Policy
Is it acceptable for a user to discuss me on their talk page, and then ban me from their talk page when I attempt to respond? Additionally, is it acceptable for that user to then blank my response, replacing it with the following quote, "F-ck off from my talk page"? The user is Jeffpw.K. Scott Bailey 12:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the link to the diff that shows what he's doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw&curid=1929953&diff=117246051&oldid=117245895 In it, he calls me a "useless dickhead who should be thrown off a cliff." Do WP:NPA and the various policies on making threats apply to talk pages?K. Scott Bailey 13:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'll want to read up on the civility policy. Rklawton 13:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- What portions? I read it, but it doesn't seem to deal directlly with whether or not people can use their usertalk pages in this way. Also, does placing a message on someone's talk page qualify as harassment or stalking (as he accused me of)? I read WP:STALK and it didn't seem to qualify, but as a newbie, I'll candidly admit I may not know what I'm talking about.K. Scott Bailey 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Folks can use their talk pages however they wish. But... Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
- Thanks. I would place a warning per WP:CIV on his page, but he seems to have many friends in decently high places, which I do not, and I have a feeling that he would simply respond with more invective. Do you have any advice on this matter? Should I just write him off as a bully whom I should summarily ignore in future discussions? Should I make an issue of how personally vicious he is? I'm unsure how to proceed.K. Scott Bailey 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I find the "unwatch" feature a great stress reliever. Rklawton 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you would recommend inaction over action in this case? Maybe it's the high school athlete in me, but I've never liked backing down from a bully, which this guy clearly is. You're probably right, though. What are your thoughts on James Buchanan? Am I right to simply step away? I've made some compromises in the discussion, but inclusion of Loewen is a deal-breaker for me. It seems as if the other side won't budge off their position. Should I just let them ram through their changes, and edit out Loewen afterwards? I truly think his inclusion damages the article greatly.K. Scott Bailey 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Folks can use their talk pages however they wish. But... Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
- What portions? I read it, but it doesn't seem to deal directlly with whether or not people can use their usertalk pages in this way. Also, does placing a message on someone's talk page qualify as harassment or stalking (as he accused me of)? I read WP:STALK and it didn't seem to qualify, but as a newbie, I'll candidly admit I may not know what I'm talking about.K. Scott Bailey 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'll want to read up on the civility policy. Rklawton 13:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because WP:CIV said that threats should never be ignored, I took this to the ANI. It appears that they are currently handling it.K. Scott Bailey 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought I might take this to you as a third opinion. I am having trouble with the "Controversy" part of the article. The video is dark, grainy and I cannot tell if it is Beyoncé Knowles or not the other citations are relying on this video. I have deleted the section as unencyclopedic content by some one keeps adding it back. I think the link would violate WP:RS WP:SPAM WP:COI Links normally to be avoided. Sections, 1,2 and 3. What do you think? I would love to hear what you have to say. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Except for the video link, the citations appear to satisfy RS, SPAM, COI, and EL. In fact, EL doesn't apply because these links are used as citations. The video link fails RS as anyone can load anything onto YouTube and while the video is consistent with what is described by reliable sources, the reliable sources don't actually say that this particular clip is authentic, and, as you pointed out, the image's identity isn't obvious. Unless or until we can find a reliable source authenticating a particular video clip, then I would suggest removing the clip link from the article.
- As to whether or not the section's content is encyclopedic, I have no clue what the standard is for pop-bios. You'll want to sort that out with the other editors. PETA's complaints against Beyoncé have been the subject of several mainstream articles, so you may face an uphill battle there. With the exception of the video link, I think the section is pretty well written. It doesn't draw any conclusions like "Beyoncé hates animals". It just states that she's had a few run-ins with PETA. And while this represents an ongoing campaign by PETA against any number of pop-icons - all of which may find its way into their biographies, we can't ignore real-world events just because they comprise overt publicity stunts. On the other hand, you could also argue that these incidents have little or no bearing on the celebrity involved and therefore they belong in the PETA article under "List of celebrities ambushed" or the like rather than in dozens of various individual biographies. I would suggest this latter option and only include the PETA-related material if a bio also contains sections specifically related to the subject's animal interactions. Rklawton 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving that section. I have only one problem with the rest of the citations, they are all drawn off of that video. Kind of like he said she said while the video does not have clear identity of the person being filmed. 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what you mean. Do you mean to say the articles were written entirely based upon that particular video - and since we question that particular video, we should also question those articles? If so, I don't think that's appropriate. We pretty much take reliable sources at face value and only challenge them when we can find other reliable sources that refute them. Why? Well, we have no way of sorting out exactly what fact checking the authors and editors completed prior to publishing their story. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify. I'm finding this topic rather interesting.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that the other citations use the same video (the one we both agreed does not have clear identity of the person being filmed.) Now if we were to have a video of , let's say President Bush being ambushed by Peta and the video was dark, grainy and it did not have clear identity of him and that video was used in the very same "reliable sources", would that be appropriate? Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since the other citations don't point to that exact URL, we can't be sure the video is legit. If they did, then it would be appropriate to include the video link in the article. It's definitely not appropriate to impeach these article citations unless you have another reliable source indicating that these citations are flawed. As I noted before, you have no idea what steps the publications took to fact check their story, and any unsourced speculation on your part would constitute original research. If you can't find a source to state that this confrontation did not happen as claimed in these articles, then you would do well to try a different tact such as one suggested above.
Your assistance at C.S. Lewis would be appreciated
There are currently a few users--a combination of a couple of anon IPs and one registered--that are deleting contextual information from the Lewis page. They've now done it, I believe, 3 or 4 times. I am not approaching 3RR, as I've only reentered the information twice, but I warned them in the last edit summary not to delete the information again without visiting the talk page to discuss it in the thread I began, or such removal would be treated as vandalism. Could you look over the situation, and possibly contribute if you get the chance? Many thanks,K. Scott Bailey 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Jeffpw has apparently imploded, and unprotection of the Buchanan page
Just so you know, Jeffpw has--at least temporarily--left WP. It seemed that I'd been able to move toward consensus with him on the Buchanan page. How would you recommend moving forward on the page? Technically, you could unprotect it, and we could insert a short paragraph, similar to the one I constructed. I'll abide by whatever you choose to do with regards to unprotection.K. Scott Bailey 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that there "appears" to be a dispute between Jeffpw and myself on this article, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to unprotect the article. I wouldn't object if some other admin unprotected it, however. I have no intention of editing the article (unless I have some time next month to read a few journal articles on the subject). Rklawton 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Impressively fast catch on the IP linkspammer. Thanks! --Christopher Thomas 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just luck. Rklawton 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Just noticed you blocked this user with ACB set, so they may not actually be able to create a new account (usernameblock'd) - Alison☺ 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doh! Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it. Rklawton 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
85.103.155.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- "85.103.155.44 - complaint is about something that happened yesterday; blanking one's own talk page is neither a policy vio nor vandalism"[5]
To clarify -- the user didn't blank his own talk page, he blanked an article discussion page. This was after his 'last warning'. --Xiaphias 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. The only edit he had in the last 24 hours was to blank his own talk page. Typically, if an IP vandal's edits are older than a few hours, it's harder to be sure we're dealing with the same person. Rklawton 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Question on Sourcing
I understand that you're not really on board with the consensus reached about Buchanan. I was just curious as to why that is, since we've expunged both Loewen and Salon, and rely almost exclusively on two popular biographies of the man, as well as Boller's Not So!, which seems a relatively even-handed treatment of the issue. Is it your opinion that ONLY peer-reviewed essays by noted history professors belong in the article as sources? This isn't in any way an attack, just a curious question.K. Scott Bailey 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the claim, I think only peer-reviewed material would suffice. However, I don't feel upset about the present version. All things considered, I think it's a good compromise - but that's a very qualified "all things considered." At any rate, I may have some time in early May to hit up JSTOR and see what the journals have had to say on the matter. Once I do that, I'll compare that to whatever version we've got at that point and either update the references to those of a higher quality - or propose some edit changes along with sourced explanations on the article's talk page (out of respect for those editors who have taken considerable time and energy to take the article thus far). At any rate, that's all pretty routine for any project seeking to upgrade an article. Rklawton 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Username
Hi there! Plase accept my utmost apologies for the (very!!) late reply, I reported the name to AIV because it was extremely similar to Saddam Hussain and it says on WP:USERNAME that they must not contain names of recently deceased people or known celebs etc and although he is not recently deceased I thoughtit would be best to warn him because if I remember correctly I reported another user to AIV for a similar username and I believe he was blocked but the final decision is up to you - Cheers!! Tellyaddict 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see the similarity between these two names:
- Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti
- Sardar akhtar hussain dogar
- Unless, perhaps, you object to the very common name, hussain. Rklawton 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
We edit-conflicted while I was looking for the (darn) 3RR block tag. Feel free to lift the block if you think you can communicate with this person. The edit summaries to me make it seem hopeless, but perhaps you can approach it with more patience than me. Cheers! Dina 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my misreport of User:68.101.89.130 to WP:AIV. You beat me to my self revert. I've now given them a vandalism4im and I'll see what happens - although the contribs did not at the time show any recent vandalism, I think the recent edit they made has now shown up. I think that's to do with the server lag there has been this eve, which is now getting better thankfully. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello RKLawton. It's as well you are here because I needed an online admin person as I wish myself to report Inter16. She interfered with my unlogged discussion page by restoring her remarks but wiped all of mine from her own. Is that right? I only came to make constructive edits on my homeland and I seldom read elsewhere. You probably acted from the best of intentions and I have caused nobody else any harm but we need to do 2 things: 1 - clear my name as bad. 2 - discipline Inter16. Balkantropolis 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Rklawton 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes sir. It was supposed to be on the talk page but I got a littled carried away. I assure you that I will check before editing in future. Balkantropolis 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Rklawton 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- well yes, all from that IP are mine. I dont hide it! Can I say two things. At the time of writing, there was tension between she and I, and there is nothing in that note threatening. I simply wished to say that I won't be interfering with her talkpage so she shouldn't interfere with mine. Balkantropolis 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
ok from here on. Positive edits only. Thank you for your patience. I fail to see where I have insulted anyone, I didn't use foul language or make deliberate offence that I realised. Either way, it wont be happening again. Balkantropolis 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like Balkantropolis was right about that article being a nasty hoax. I've afd'd it, and I'm going to indef the two accounts responsible for creating it (they haven't been active in a while, but just for the record.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The is the error
Sorry about that, I was trying to report the user Frenchhog2 for repeatedly vandalizing Sora (Kingdom Hearts) but somehow submitted the wrong name.Stoic atarian 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. Rklawton 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
04/02/06 outbreak
It happened in Fairview as well, two months after the outbreak (died in hospital), per the NCDC database (linked to the article) and an anniversary report on KAIT-TV on Monday. That raised the death toll from 28 to 29 (26 to 27 from tornadoes). CrazyC83 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'm fairly new as an admin so am deliberately trying not to be too heavy handed with the mop, so I'm more than happy for more experienced administrators to extend blocks where necessary. Cheers, Waggers 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, I'll adopt that approach too. A decision tree would be good, both as a guide for new admins and to ensure a good degree of consistency. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Waggers 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have already struck out the warning and apologised for the error. LittleOldMe 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Vandals are afoot - just not this editor. Rklawton 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This user is clearly vadalizing the article Our Lady of the Abandoned Parish with edits such as [[6]] and [[7]], which are not minor formating changes, hence the need for a vandalisms warning. The user is also a new user, created minutes after two previous vandal and sockpuppet were blocked block from editing the same article specifically, which is very suspicious. Stoic atarian 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see that now. On the other hand, novice users can make simple mistakes. At any rate, he should have been reported as a possible sock rather than through AIV (my opinion). I'm watching his account and will block him immediately if I see a clear instance of vandalism. Rklawton 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
User talk:DrBiatch
I dont really know much about Wikipedia, but I see your an Admin. While looking up some information for a paper I noticed this editor User talk:DrBiatch. Can someone actually create a user name like that?129.61.46.60 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, they can create it. They can create a lot worse. And we block such creations on sight. Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:Thanks
For keeping such a good eye on my user page! Dina 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Happy to do it; sorry it's needed. Rklawton 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick request
Hi there. Re. this block where you reviewed and extended a block that I'd placed, could you possibly take a quick glance at my block log and just let me know am I being balanced in my approach to blocking. I'm only about 3 weeks into admin and would love some feedback on how I'm doing. Only if you have the chance, mind, and don't put too much effort in or anything. Just a brief overview would be kinda cool - just to ensure I'm on the right track. Thanks - Alison☺ 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
So how is adminship? Did you get your cabal membership card in the mail yet? :) -Ravedave 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism on Dora the Explorer == Dear Rklawton, May I thank you most warmly for your rapid intervention in blocking the IP Vandal disrupting the Dora the Explorer article. This article and one of its co-articles, Go Diego Go have been the subject of some fairly bizarre vandalism over the last few weeks, and people like myself, with CVU and the Recent change patrol, are getting on top of it. Once again, your help in this issue is much appreciated. Thanks, Thor Malmjursson 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know that removing those comments was the result of an edit conflict, not my meaning to remove them. Cheers, Mak (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I thought it was something like that given your great contribution history. Rklawton 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandal magnet
Yeah, I really am. Not sure why, but I don't really mind. Enjoy your vacation! Dina 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there; I was going to just pass this users unblock request on to you and let you decide, but I see that you are on holiday. Having looked through his edits, I really feel that he is wiki-ignorant, but not an intentional vandal. I will leave it until this time tomorrow, in case you check in. Otherwise I think that I will unblock him, but with a blood-curdling warning in case he ever does it again.--Anthony.bradbury 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We are going to start working on Peoria, so if you feel like contributing, feel free! We need all the help we can get!--Kranar drogin 23:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton-
Goldie777, a user whom you blocked, is appealing rather strenuously for an unblock. I've asked the user to demonstrate that they can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and they haven't yet. If Goldie produces something of merit, I hope you don't mind if I reduce the length of the block. If Goldie doesn't produce anything of merit, your indef block will stand. Have a good holiday, see you when you return, A Traintalk 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to follow through on this in my absence. I respect your judgment and have no objections to your plan. I’m just checking in for a few moments and will resume editing upon my return. Thanks again for your efforts. --Rklawton 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at old articles on the list of "Cleanup by Month" and have edited a few that were badly written. I have not removed the notation at the top of the page that says "this article may require cleanup" etc. because I'm not sure my cleanup alone is sufficient to remove it from the cleanup list. Will someone else be likely to come along and review my changes and remove that notation if appropriate? Countedx58 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, though it will take time. Keep up the good work. Your contribution history will speak for itself. Rklawton 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks for the tip. Countedx58 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dinosaur images
Hi Rk,
Thanks for your recent photographic additions to Daspletosaurus, Bambiraptor, and Edmontosaurus. If you have additional dinosaur images, feel free to add them! Wikipedia has around 1,000 dinosaur articles, many without any illustrations. Thank you again for your contributions. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've got a few more, but I'll have to add them later. Rklawton 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
innacurate media reports length
Your action here to shorten the inaccurate media reports bothers me for a number of reasons. 1. You and many other Wikipedia members need to quit being hung up about length. You should NEVER sacrifice valid information for the sake of shortening the article up. 2. You elliminated the information without replacing it where you think it belongs. 3. If you really care about length then you should MOVE every point of innacurate media reports into the article that you felt it belonged and lessened the Section to nothing more than a link. 4. The article page where you feel it belongs is under consideration for being deleted. All the more reason that you should respect people's contributions and move them rather than just delete themYoungidealist 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see by the response to your edits, the shorter, the better. If you follow the issue over the next few weeks, you'll see that the massacre article will focus more exclusively on the event and its aftermath. Individual observations regarding media accuracy will be removed as original research. The Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre article will be renamed and focus almost entirely on Michael Sneed because that's the only accuracy issue likely to receive media attention. Remember, we can cite other people's work, but we can not draw our own conclusions regarding other people's work. Therefore, only when we find several reliable articles about media screw-ups will we have the basis for an article on that topic - Wikipedian's observations notwithstanding. Rklawton 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was the one who removed the paragraphs completely with nothing more than a link so as to FAIRLY and NONBIASEDLY allow for people like you who complain about the length of the article to quit being such an annoyance in removing important facts. If you had thought hard enough about your reasons you would have seen this as the only REASONABLE comprimise. Also, I commented on this stupid rule that people are toting, that we can't allow for our own observations even when sourced. By your description, nothing should be posted on wikipediaa that isn't a direct quote. A little mouse responded to my comment and told me that this is a misconception and that there is no such rule. If you can show me otherwise then that would be helpful in drawing the line. I quoted Cho from the video he made that was on NBC as a source and I used an article from NBC as a source as well. Youngidealist 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Given your general lack civility, I perceive you aren't enjoying your editing experience here on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find something more enjoyable to do with your time than call experienced editors names when it is you who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and practices. Rklawton 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are lazy, not experienced. Show some decency towards other people before you expect the same in returnYoungidealist 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Given your general lack civility, I perceive you aren't enjoying your editing experience here on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find something more enjoyable to do with your time than call experienced editors names when it is you who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and practices. Rklawton 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was the one who removed the paragraphs completely with nothing more than a link so as to FAIRLY and NONBIASEDLY allow for people like you who complain about the length of the article to quit being such an annoyance in removing important facts. If you had thought hard enough about your reasons you would have seen this as the only REASONABLE comprimise. Also, I commented on this stupid rule that people are toting, that we can't allow for our own observations even when sourced. By your description, nothing should be posted on wikipediaa that isn't a direct quote. A little mouse responded to my comment and told me that this is a misconception and that there is no such rule. If you can show me otherwise then that would be helpful in drawing the line. I quoted Cho from the video he made that was on NBC as a source and I used an article from NBC as a source as well. Youngidealist 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
--Mullins 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)== User:"Young n***a..." ==
Thank you for blocking him. However, he was originally editing from 207.144.59.134 and now that his user ID is blocked, he has returned to harassment from that IP address. Wahkeenah 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope yo like my new username better. It seems some users had racist assumptions. I don't be editing from no IP address. A young nin*a from da street 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to continuing to harass from that IP address and that slightly altered username, here is another new user who, by an amazing coincidence, went straight to the small list of articles and users that the above user(s) have been harassing. [8] Wahkeenah 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I might be skirting the 3-revert rule on that one article about the Wicked Witch of the East. I regard his continual reversions as vandalism, since he won't address the complaint, that the "info" he added is unsourced and thus, for all we know, made up out of thin air. That other user, JaneJellyRoll, also reverted once, which is why she incurred that user's wrath. But if I'm off base on reverting that one article, please let me know. Wahkeenah 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since there is no such expert by that name at USC, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rklawton 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The IP address just posted a detailed citation. Which, in light of your comment, makes me wonder if it's a phony. Wahkeenah 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are new citations, so I'll have to go look them up. Rklawton 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, that new user MullinsLabsInc posted a comment on my talk page denying he has any connection to the others, while using similarly insulting language. Wahkeenah 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are new citations, so I'll have to go look them up. Rklawton 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The IP address just posted a detailed citation. Which, in light of your comment, makes me wonder if it's a phony. Wahkeenah 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since there is no such expert by that name at USC, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rklawton 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I might be skirting the 3-revert rule on that one article about the Wicked Witch of the East. I regard his continual reversions as vandalism, since he won't address the complaint, that the "info" he added is unsourced and thus, for all we know, made up out of thin air. That other user, JaneJellyRoll, also reverted once, which is why she incurred that user's wrath. But if I'm off base on reverting that one article, please let me know. Wahkeenah 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to continuing to harass from that IP address and that slightly altered username, here is another new user who, by an amazing coincidence, went straight to the small list of articles and users that the above user(s) have been harassing. [8] Wahkeenah 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WAHKEENAH
That is not true. He never was at 207.144.59.134, unless he broke into this building. You might want to get your facts straight.
As for this gentleman, he appears to be intelligent. I very disappointed to find him falling for your lies. Rklawton, you should investigate this a bit more. There are conversations between all of these IP/screen-names. They are not the same people. And if you look long enough, you would realize that all they were asking is to be heard and to be allowed to add to knowledge and wisdom and for people to stop spreading hate and ignorance.
Take another look. Stop the hate, don't add to it. If anyone is causing trouble on this site it is WAHKEENAH!
Please help. Stop this trouble that Wahkeenah is creating.
Citations?re Okay, I see. Even when numerous people from different locations agree - and when they give valid ciations for research, it is still removed if certain ones of you don't agree with the information - even if it is factual. I'm very new to Wik., but I'm beginning to see that it merely a spam-board of pious opinions of people who don't have the education that they want others to think that they have. As for Mullins Lab Ins (we have a website -- we are real) I look up the citations provided earlier - that have now been removed - all of them were real also. But you don't want real. You don't want valid. You don't want peace. I'm sorry that we ever bothered your "reality." I thought this site was about facts. I misunderstood, and for that I apologize. --Mullins 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Gagging the truth
Mr. Lawton,
You might want to do your research. You have removed valid information and valid articles from the WICKED WITCH OF EAST. I'm not sure what all the rules are for this website, but removing valid is encouraging ignorance. I would have thought that you might have wanted to use as much true information as there is out there to increase wisdom and knowledge rather than gagging it.
Reverts are allowed to post valid information. - It is valid. The articles are valid. The users are valid. The only thing is not valid, is the arguements that multiple people are the same person - and that professional journal articles are not valid. Please check your library - these are real articles, with real information. You are removing facts. That is yellow-journalism - gagging the truth.
Please don't do this. Please. Check out the facts. Please.
--Mullins 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you would read the sources provided, you would learn that none of them support the information added to the article. Zero, zip, nix, nada. Therefore, its vandalism. Therefore, the user(s) who continue adding it to the article are vandals and subject to blocking. Rklawton 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The guy is now making threats against us. Please review his latest "contributions": [9] Wahkeenah 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
−−
Dear Sir, Please note that I believed the citations to be valid support for the information. Upon what you have stated from your research and reading, I concide the possiblity that while valid articles, that they might not support the information. I just hate seeing people be bullied, but I do apologize for defending incorrect information. Thank you for letting me know that the articles did not support the claims. In addition, I require your assistance in the removal of defacing remarks that have been placed by other users concerning my name (which the same as my family's company). Due to the fact that this user name represents our company, defacing remarks concerning us and/or our company could result in legal action. I have been legally advised to request that these comments be removed from your website. I have no hard feeling toward any of you, but I believe that there are those of you who have made very serious mistakes concerning MullinsLabInc and our identity. You (and anyone else) is more than welcome to check out our website. We are a small (but growing and very old family business) pathology lab - located in the South East US. Thank you for your assistance in this effort. Peace to you and this website. Mullins 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
MullinsLabsInc
I think you should post the user to WP:ANI, per the legal threats, or just directly to WP:AIV. If that fails, the WP:RFCN will go through. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another admin has now blocked that user. And if I may say, if we were to take his attitude as representative of the company he supposedly works for, he ought to sue himself for defamation. :) Thank you for your help. :) Wahkeenah 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious, I'd say, as to exactly the affiliations that editor had with that poor, unassuming company. Blocked now per WP:LEGAL - Alison☺ 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I guess it is a little obvious this could be a joe job? And what did User:A young nin*a from da street have to do with this? Shenme 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Mullins guy popped up yesterday, out of nowhere, a brand new user, and went immediately to the short list of pages "young n***a" and the IP address had been messing with and gave him/them verbal high-fives. And it went downhill from there. Wahkeenah 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- And if it's a joe job, then an indef block is fully appropriate. With perhaps one exception, we've all expressed sympathy for the organization. Assuming Alison's communication with the organization contained her usual remarkable tact, she will be neither accusing nor insulting; she'll simply inform them that someone is abusing their good name. Rklawton 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of my legendary "remarkable tact" (LOL!!), that's exactly what I did. The company has a right to know that 1) someone is issuing legal threats in their name (which in itself may be a legal issue) or 2) one of their representatives has and they need to contact the good Mr. Gerard to take the matter further. Pmail me and I'll forward on the correspondence I sent. I've lost your address! - Alison☺ 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I meant that sincerely, and I didn't doubt you for a moment. Rklawton 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That user has put in a request for review of my interaction with him/her, telling them that I need to be "educated" and twice stating that I have committed "liable". Wahkeenah 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I meant that sincerely, and I didn't doubt you for a moment. Rklawton 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of my legendary "remarkable tact" (LOL!!), that's exactly what I did. The company has a right to know that 1) someone is issuing legal threats in their name (which in itself may be a legal issue) or 2) one of their representatives has and they need to contact the good Mr. Gerard to take the matter further. Pmail me and I'll forward on the correspondence I sent. I've lost your address! - Alison☺ 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I guess it is a little obvious this could be a joe job? And what did User:A young nin*a from da street have to do with this? Shenme 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that. I've just filed a sock request to see if we might sort some of this out. I'll be very interested to see the results. By the way, your patience in all this has been most remarkable. Keep up the good work. Rklawton 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- See, I am larnin'. :) Wahkeenah 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- ...even though I'm not a genius, as that IP address pointed out, although I would beat him in a spelling bee. I want to say that I do appreciate the time and effort put into this by the both of you. I have another admin that I normally take these kinds of problems too, but he appears to be on vacation (or maybe totally wrapped up in work and/or the Mets), so I thought I was going to be fighting this character for awhile. Y'all came to the rescue before I lost my temper beyond repair. :) Wahkeenah 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Incompetent vandals
Tsk, tsk - doesn't work - Alison☺ 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Another "Charlottan"
I see this guy hit you as well. On my talk page he said he had "notified an admin". His method of doing so is fairly unique. Maybe another "blockage" candidate? [10] Wahkeenah 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mystery solved, and it had to do with a spam-revert situation from 2 weeks ago that I had forgotten already. User:Alison has blocked this one now. Wahkeenah 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey
Hey
I live in Charlotte! None of those are advertising ANYTHING!! They either EXPAND on topics briefly mentioned, or COVER topics NOT MENTIONED AT ALL!
Most of them are public utility links. Others are sites recently featured in the news for one reason or another as USEFUL!
I live here in Charlotte, YOU DO NOT!
Don't edit things you know nothing about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.118.10 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
You have been reported to an admin for rule violations. ~Wahkeenah 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoesphJobs (talk • contribs)
- Ah yes. Blocked again - Alison ☺ 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ya beat me to it by seconds. Cheers, R.
- One thing all these characters have in common is being spelling-challenged. It's like their "calling card". Thank you, both, for your support. :) Wahkeenah 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ya beat me to it by seconds. Cheers, R.
Thanks!
Thanks for this. That fella has been coming back every so often to express his... dislike... for me, and I'm not sure why. Probably deleted his garage band or something. Anyway, thank you! :) – Riana ऋ 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I owe someone beer because I think that was my first six month block. (it's a skydiver joke). Anyway, glad to do it. Rklawton 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
School tags
Remember to "subst" school tags when posting them. Rklawton 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, there is a consensus against substing school tags. This enables us to change all school tags at once if we decide to update the format of the template. Please see the instructions at Template:SharedIP and Template:SharedIPEDU and the discussion here. Selket Talk 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Awesome pictures by the way. --Selket Talk 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aw shucks :-) Rklawton 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Awesome pictures by the way. --Selket Talk 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Noted here, too - Alison ☺ 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just got an ovation at my kid's daycare for an end of year video I produced for tonight's big show. Now my head won't fit through the door. Gees, and thanks. Rklawton 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes a blog! Yes a Realtor site !
No those sites are not spam you nazi! You don't live here, so YOU HAVE NO CLUE!
Both of those sites have a local buzz to them. The crime blog has be exposed many times as an ingenius idea. It was started to showcase how many repeat violent offenders are given slaps on the wrist. Very useful to someone wanting info about Charlotte
The realtor site is a company that has been featured on the news for helping fraud victims. They were recognized by NC State represenative Deborah Ross. Considering most real estate companies are crooks, its good to highlight one that is not.
Everything that was there, expanded on important details not covered by the article.
That city-data forum is one of the best places to get accurate data from locals. It's a very strict forum.. there are no advertisements.
Carolina Nightlife is hands down the best Charlotte nightlife resource guide out there. There is nothing relevant discussing anything about nightlife. You can't expect to believe that your NARROW VIEW of what you believe is appropriate applies to everyone. It doesn't!
You are a scumbag! You ban me prematurely, and then tell me to discuss it. How am I supposed to do that when I am banned?? I'm glad you clowns love the little power trip you get. You don't know Charlotte, your selective enforcement policies are BULLSHIT, and you don't follow rules you are entrusted to enforce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.118.10 (talk • contribs)
- I wonder of all "Charlottans" talk the way this one does? Wahkeenah 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, name callng is considered disruptive - and can result in editing blocks of increasing length. Next, Wikipedia has policies regarding spam and reliable sources. If you wish to make a case for these links, then you'll need to show how these links satisfy these policies. You do that by discussing them on the relevant article's talk page. On the other hand, if you'd rather just call people names, I'll be happy to block you again. It's your call. Rklawton 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Its just nice to see a helpful wikipedian every now and again. I would like to jus say that you can delete the article Red Nose Riot if u so wish. Thank you for just giving me the jist of wikipedia and yes i will stay. MasterEditor99 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the user asserted that he had left his account logged in and a friend had vandalized and then went to great lengths to try and demonstrate his willingness to be a good user. I unblocked him with this small lecture. Natalie had received a few emails again and we both basically agreed that if he vandalized again, we would just block him indef and be done with it. I've been checking his contribs for the past few days and he hasn't really had any. I don't see what he's done at Corcoran as vandalism, though he obviously has a strong point of view on the topic. However there seems to be an ongoing dispute (not only, from what I can tell, from him) about whether or not it is an Irish or English surname (something about which I have no opinion.) I still stand by my original unblock -- the user hasn't vandalized since the unblock, however I won't undo your action. I do think comments in his unblock request were a stupid move on his part. Cheers Dina 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Contribution review by user edit contribution number starting at the account's 1st edit:
- - apparently legitimate edit to the Corcoran article
- - 3 minutes later – this edit contains blatant vandalism of the Corcoran article's talk page, edits which attempt to bully other editors into accepting the 1st edit's point of view.
- - 1 minute later – blatant vandalism to the Corcoran article
- - 2 minutes later – apparently legitimate edit to the Corcoran article, but the editor doesn’t repair the vandalism added during the previous edit (there are no intervening edits)
- - 1 minute later – removes bot-added signature to edit #2 but not the vandalism itself
- - 3 minutes later – blanks the Black article and replaces it with racial epithets
- To accept this editor's assertion that his "friend" made these edits, we must believe that they traded their keyboard back and forth and that the editor took no action to undo any of his "friend's" vandalism.
- The second editing session a few hours later yields a similar pattern. Apparently legitimate edits devolve into page blanking within minutes, and the user is blocked.
- With the block lifted, the editor resumes reverting/editing the Corcoran article and calls people who disagree with his point of view names. At this point, it is clearly impossible to differentiate the editor from his vandalizing "friend". In short, it was obvious this editor lied to have his/her block removed. Therefore, I re-instated the indef-block. The editor's next few edits were highly inappropriate, so I protected his talk page, too. I've also had to add a filter to my e-mail program so as to stop off-line harassment. Rklawton 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did warn him that his actions would be subject to much greater scrutiny after his unblock. I have email too, it looks like. Dina 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up on Corcoran. I had already added myself a couple days ago to the watch list, so there are at least two more eyes keeping a lookout :) -- LeCourT:C 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
maybe, maybe not
There's a reason that I chose that (Gatlinburg) and not the 10 or 11 others. For some of the others, I couldn't think of anyway to improve them significantly. For the one I chose, I thought there was a tiny bit of hope. Still, I moved it to my own user page and out of mainspace (per that administrator's suggestion, majorly??? is the name?). I don't want to assign homework to my adoptee such as "edit an article on Italy, or history of toothpaste, or something else." He can pick what interests him and I'll give him my opinions and advice. We'll see what we can make of the article. Now that it's off mainspace but still there to be worked on, nobody should be unhappy.VK35 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The unhappiness will come when your mentee sees his work deleted again. Rklawton 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Chain mail
For some reason I just noticed your post to Talk:Chainmail from February. Yes, your photos would be most welcome as far as I'm concerned. Actual examples of period armor are far more illustrative than the few bits of modern reproductions we now have. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Just a question
yeah about the vandalism on my page. it has been done twice by the same person User:Jagzthebest twice. i was wondering whether you could sned him a warning of some sort? thnx MasterEditor99 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did. Thanks. And I can see that by your own contributions, you are headed for a block as well. Please take care. This is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site. Rklawton 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Don't forget that vandals should have had a final warning issued to them before blocking is considered - it may be their only warning if they are blatant vandal-only accounts. As Nasz hasn't had such a warning and the article was only created once and not a repeated attempt to insert the information in to Wikipedia at this time, I have just issued a warning and removed him from the AIV list. Keep an eye on him and report if he doesn't comply with the appropriate guidelines. Regards, (aeropagitica) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- You've got the wrong editor. I didn't add "Nasz" to the list. Check the AIV edit history again. Rklawton 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Note
Removal of comments
I have restored my comments that you removed from Talk:Texas Tech University. Please refrain from removing the comments of others from talk pages. Thank you. --Wordbuilder 04:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Their removal was entirely accidental. In fact, I look forward to responding to this particular line of thought. Rklawton 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I've nearly done the same thing myself more than once when editing a section. --Wordbuilder 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Vandals
I really can't believe how much your page has been vandalised. Keep up the good work!--Kranar drogin 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Only about once a week. My heros here get far more intertaining vandalism than that. The last guy just wanted to let me know he vandalized the Mount Vernon, Missouri article again. It was really rather nice of him, actually. Rklawton 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: just one thing
thanks for taking the blocking notice off. i really do appreciate it. also i know this must sound really biased to you because i am arguing my case but user:jagzthebest will do anything just to get himself out of trouble. i do understand that he has done some good edits but i did not log on as hime and edits things or do his so called "tests". anyway keeping to the point thanks for the unblock! MasterEditor99 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Canada Goose
You have accused me of vandalism in response to the following edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada_Goose&diff=128696968&oldid=128581951
I did not vandalize the page. The information about the record-size giant goose that I had previously added was based on the 1965 edition of Hanson's book, but due to the unavailability of an ISBN number for that edition, I had referenced the 1997 version under the assumption that the statistics were still present. This was inappropriate and I apologize for it; however, my most recent edit was an attempt to CORRECT that mistake. As it stands, the reverted page may or may not contain an incorrect citation. PenguinJockey 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I could find no reference to the ASIN you posted. However, ISBN 978-0809319244 produces the correct result. If you meant to point to a different reference, give it another shot. Rklawton 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The ASIN I used is the one from Amazon, but I'm not sure ASIN numbers are considered acceptable when citing references. I can't imagine that the info would have been left out of the 1997 edition, so I'll leave things as they are for now. PenguinJockey 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help.
I never imagined anyone would claim a paper authored by Boston U. and published by the American Journal of Public Health was "non-notable". Burntapple 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: What Was Wrong
just a queury but what was wrong with Barton Peveril college? i just want to know so that i can improve it. MasterEditor99 12:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please refer to the links at the top of your talk page - especially the link to our Manual of Style. Rklawton 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
North Korea
As much as i appreciate your efforts to "clean-up" wikipedia pages, i'd really rather not spend my time discussing topics. My interest here is to clarify information since there seems to be a severe lack of North Korean specialists editing these NK pages. If there are parts of the article that bother you, feel free to change them as anyone else is able, but i just don't have the time or energy (or desire really) to discuss the actual issues or explain on the talk page everything about how north korea functions. I'm only writing this to account for my future lack of response to questions or concerns you might have (as much as i wish i could devote the time and energy to spelling it all out). I only ask that before making edits all users think about whether they have a grasp on the issue they're editing (basically whether they know what they're talking about or not :) but i leave that up to each user to decide for themselves. Cheers! Icactus 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this your way of saying that you will not respond to discussions regarding various topics? If that's the case, and if you continue reverting sourced edits, you will find yourself blocked for disruption. Consider your position carefully. Rklawton 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have not reverted any source edits and i do not appreciate your persistant tone in chatting with me. I will not discuss this topic further with you and have carried out this discussion in good faith thus-far. Please refrain from using exaggerated language such as "Continue verting sourced edits" which is not true and please refrain from making this a personal issue. I simply wish to remove pro US bias from North Korean pages and, as a fellow editor has already noted, contentious edits should be discussed before simply being declared true. I have spent a significant amount of time in remaining Neutral and do not wish to defend myself further. Please just let me be. thank you. Icactus 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: why?
why are u so against me? every article i edit u are always there reverting it back to the state it was in before. every little edit that i do is being changed by u! u have gone ott! what is your problem with me? MasterEditor99 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- In general, your spelling and grammar are terrible. Next, you tend to add information without providing a source. Third, you've copy/pasted text directly from copyrighted websites into at least one article in violation of our copyright policies. If you would like more specific explanations, post a link with the "diff" (URL showing my specific edit) below and I'll explain it. Rklawton 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: what if
what if the source is me. for instance it it is my own knowledge. also could u perhaps give ME the url of some terrible grammer that i have incorporated into an article? MasterEditor99 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's your question, not mine. And we only accept reliable, verifiable sources. Perhaps you should read up on how to edit Wikipedia before you edit anything else. There's a bunch of links at the top of your talk page that you'll find useful. Rklawton 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
North Korea
Dear Mr. Lawton,
There have been many discussions on the government description on North Korea, perhaps you would care to browse them at your leisure, or create a new one before editing? I don't mean any offence at all sir, but this matter has been going around and around many times. Thank you for your time. Speedboy Salesman 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because that's what the government constitution says, and Wikipedia should try it's best to be unbiased, and disregard opinions. Speedboy Salesman 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that runs contrary to the discussion in the country project. Rklawton 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
AfD Ryan Johnson
Hi. I created the Ryan Johnson page because I think he doesn't get added to the List of Iraq War Resisters otherwise. So, maybe you could chat with the people who created that list, change its structure. Obviously a novice, take care, HG 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if you've looked into the whole List of Iraq war resisters? Perhaps all the AfDs and merges could be done around the same time. HG 04:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at some of them, but I've been short on time. I've nominated two. Two others I looked at seemed notable due to the challenges they posed. For example, one is challenging the legality of the war and his first court martial ended in a hung jury (of his peers!). As a result, I've elected to take them on a case by case basis. Rklawton 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. Pls let me know about new AfDs on them. Take care, HG 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't feel comfortable doing that lest I give the appearance of vote stacking. However, feel free to review these articles and nominate them yourself or to watch each of the articles for AfD notices, talk page discussions, etc. Rklawton 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. Pls let me know about new AfDs on them. Take care, HG 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at some of them, but I've been short on time. I've nominated two. Two others I looked at seemed notable due to the challenges they posed. For example, one is challenging the legality of the war and his first court martial ended in a hung jury (of his peers!). As a result, I've elected to take them on a case by case basis. Rklawton 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi RK! User:HolyChristianWarrior has requested unblocking. The talk page would seem to suggest that doing so would be a Bad Thing, but the reasoning given (requests for evidence of sockpuppetry) isn't completely unreasonable... per se. I've provisionally declined the unblock because of the seemingly poor edit record; but if you could expand on your reasoning, that would help the user (he says). If you do want to unblock after all, give me a shout - I think a {{usernameblock}} is in order anyway but I can do that.
Yeah, I know, this all sounds so... pointless, doesn't it? :o) ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Notorious IP
Would you please reinstate you block here [11] due to persistent vandalism? [12] Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Indian (baseball game)
Based on your arbitrary, subjective, and misused rationale of "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" that you've applied to Indian (baseball game) and somehow extracted from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, please delete Punchball, Flu-Flu Golf, Yolf, Campus Golf, and I'm sure many, many others.
I would hope that you take a more moderate approach to a well-written article by a non-anon and instead at least propose deletion. Kids and adults across the baseball-playing world take their regional derivations of baseball more seriously than you obviously assume, and Wikipedia should not speedily delete a unique aspect of regional culture that is ubiquitous throughout certain areas. Everybody who was raised in Eastern Connecticut knows what Indian is with regards to a game, and I'm sure people who are active but cannot field teams of 9 players in Illinois have tried and true derivations of games, such as baseball, which they play on a regular basis. Riphamilton 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll skip the civility lecture and get right to the point. If you can find reliable, verifiable sources indicating the notability of this variation, I'll be happy to undelete the article. In the mean time, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's standards. You'll likely have better results if you do. Rklawton 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks also for the tips on the other articles. However, unlike your article, I had no trouble verifying that these games exist. Rklawton 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your response to my report on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page
Hi You said nothing recent, but there have been 12 today. Please explain what you meant/point me to the relevent policy. Thanks - John 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blocking isn't a punishment. Blocking is meant to prevent harm to the project. See policy here. Rklawton 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's demotivating to see the quantity of vandalism coming from IP's. John 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. And it's fun to shut them down mid-stream. The competing objective, though, is to encourage new visitors to become productive contributors. Indeed, I got my start at Wikipedia as an IP vandal attempting to prove a point to my class regarding Wikipedia's reliability. I was most impressed by editors' responses to my edits, and I've been a contributor ever since. Rklawton 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's demotivating to see the quantity of vandalism coming from IP's. John 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Return of Navy Cross article vandal
The person at IP address 67.91.41.54 who was blocked for repeatedly vandalizing the Navy Cross page has returned to form. The same vandalism was perpetrated by a user at IP address 70.126.240.205 a few weeks ago, so the person may be using more than one address. 207.38.168.98 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it. Rklawton 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: just to let you know
I've edited your comments on Talk:Jerry Falwell, since it's obvious you said the opposite of what you meant :). Thanks for the support on this particular issue :) ! - Nunh-huh 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doh! And thanks! Rklawton 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think I was trolling. I was trying to bring attention to the fact that the article was being vandalized at a high rate of speed. I was also trying to be funny, though sometimes that sort of thing doesn't come across properly in text. Concerning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJerry_Falwell&diff=131102442&oldid=131102041 Sycomonkey 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification of fair use of album covers
Hello. A while back you made this edit to the Midnight Syndicate article in which you deleted all the album covers except for one which was used in the discography section. Yesterday, a relatively new editor deleted the one cover that you left in [13] and when I asked why that editor said you probably just missed that one. I don't have any expertise in the rules regarding using image on Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that you left the album cover that was in the discography section because that section is specifically about the albums. Please let me know if it is alright to have the album cover in the discography section or if it should stay out. Thank you for your help! - Skinny McGee 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. WP:FUC is pretty clear (to me anyway). Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw your response on the article's talk page. Thank you so much for the quick reply! - Skinny McGee 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I suggest adding subsections along with some useful information for each album, and then re-add the image. As it stood, the image only decorated a list of albums. Rklawton 19:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks! - Skinny McGee 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I suggest adding subsections along with some useful information for each album, and then re-add the image. As it stood, the image only decorated a list of albums. Rklawton 19:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw your response on the article's talk page. Thank you so much for the quick reply! - Skinny McGee 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For Love not Lisa!
Not a big For Love Not Lisa fan, I guess. Dude THEY ROCK!!!!!!!!!! --AStanhope 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There’s only one source. What should I do now? Can you do it for me please? I'm afraid I'll mess up. You are a better editor than me. I cannot do this. It's too hard. There's only one site. How do I contact them? It will take forever. How do I contact them through their site? Can't you just do it for me? I'll just email them but it might take a few days for them to get back to me. (I'm so bored)
- Check with the EAC and find out if they've had any articles written about them. Organizations tend to keep track of their own publicity, so they might be able to help you out. You should have some time to work on this since secondary schools usually qualify for their own articles automatically. Rklawton 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contact them throught their website. I'll keep an eye on the article and help you format the references once you post them. If you're really concerned about messing up the article, then just post the references on the article's talk page and someone will pick it up from there. Rklawton 02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- A few days shouldn't be a problem at all. Keep in mind it's the end of the school year, so it may even take a month or so. Not a problem, though. Rklawton 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contact them throught their website. I'll keep an eye on the article and help you format the references once you post them. If you're really concerned about messing up the article, then just post the references on the article's talk page and someone will pick it up from there. Rklawton 02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. It's nice to get nice comments now and then. --Elliskev 00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Lenin
Another JP sock? Ultramarine 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- This one isn't as obvious, but that doesn't mean he isn't learning. I suggest filing a sock check request. Rklawton 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not always his typical articles. Similar to User talk:Ruy Lopez, [14], who edited Soviet espionage and Red Khmer articles. Better fit? Ultramarine 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looking though JPs socks, he has edited those article. Will request checkuser.Ultramarine 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not always his typical articles. Similar to User talk:Ruy Lopez, [14], who edited Soviet espionage and Red Khmer articles. Better fit? Ultramarine 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to create an article
Hi there I would like your permission to create one of the articles featured on my talk page.If you feel they should not be posted yet please tell me.Thanks man Cú Culainn 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
ok
thanks man Cú Culainn 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Power Analytics
Dear Rklawton: See that you have an interest in electrical power systems, and are a technical consultant. Because of your expertise, I'm concerned about your your objections to discussion of Power Analytics. Please contact me, so I can explain to you why the U.S. government, utilities, and corporations feel this is one of the most important new technologies available for preventing power outages like the Northeast Blackout of 2003 and ensuring the environmental friendliness of power plants. You might also ready the 7x24 Exchange article referenced. It's important stuff. Thanks, Jrneumann Jrneumann 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since I am not involved in the power industry in any manner other than that of consumer, there is no conflict of interest. But thank you for your concern. Rklawton 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Buried hatchet and photo hijinks
Anyway - what do you think of this? [15] This woman Joy Cantrilo takes photos of herself with celebrities, and then someone is using them as pics for numerous biographical articles. Do we really want pics for multiple bio articles that include her? I find it to be strange. I noticed it on the Jamie Kennedy article - I assumed that she was Mrs. Jamie Kennedy. No such luck - she's simply somebody who is starstruck. Your opinion? --AStanhope 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image indicated shows two different licenses, so I'm asking the uploader for clarification. I also see that's a problem shared with some of this uploader's other images. Let's see where this licensing thing goes first. Once that's sorted out, I may have a solution to the concern you've addressed above. Rklawton 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that cropping the photos might do the trick. What do the rules say about cropping a photo that is properly licensed for use on the Wikipedia? --AStanhope 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I've been enjoying your photography. I apologize for starting off on the wrong foot with you. I look forward to many thousands of beneficial edits ahead! --AStanhope 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Cropping is fine so long as the image is still attributed to the original creator and the license remains the same. However, there's a possibility that these images will be deleted due to licensing problems, so cropping now might be a waste of your time. Specifically the CC 2.0 license is not acceptable on Wikipedia, yet the uploader specified that license while tagging it with CC 2.5. The two are not compatible. I've left a note for the uploader. If I don't hear back, I'll send him/her an e-mail. If I still don't hear back, I'll nominate all such images for deletion. Stay tuned. Rklawton 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that cropping the photos might do the trick. What do the rules say about cropping a photo that is properly licensed for use on the Wikipedia? --AStanhope 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see the uploader has revised the copyright to reflect the tag on the image you pointed out. If you're interested, I suggest reviewing all the uploader's images and provide him with links to those that have the mis-matched copyrights. Once he makes the fixes then you can go to town cropping the images. Just make sure to use the same copyright (probably CC 2.5) and attribute the original work exactly the same way the uploader did (which is what CC 2.5 requires). It's a bit of work on your part, but it solves the problem you wished to address. Rklawton 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald - prod request
Any chance you could prod the article Glenn Greenwald? There is a nasty cabal of folks that keep on adding some bullshit blog-based allegations about blog comment sockpuppetry to the article. It's silly - and it's in clear violation of WP:BLP. There is an anon there right now who is about to 3RR himself by restoring the section YET AGAIN. Please let me know what you think - and prod if possible. --AStanhope 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting - the anon in question at the moment (71.100.1.7) signed the Talk page with as "Raphaelaarchon" - a user who was blocked previously for doing the same thing a few weeks ago.[16] --AStanhope 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- He's up to 5 reverts this evening alone! I left it as-is - I don't want to violate 3RR. --AStanhope 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Try any of these:
Rklawton 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thx - I'm trying the 3RR noticeboard first. --AStanhope 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
can u please help me
can u restore my previous image on my user page please as i tried and it didnt work . user:jagzthebest vandalised it. to be honest i really do think u should block him. MasterEditor99 19:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed - Alison ☺ 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, thank you for your help in assessing the Charles Bennison article. I have made some changes and would like your input. Fredmarch 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Image talk deletion
I noticed you deleted at least two images without deleting their talk pages. I've marked the ones I found with {{db-talk}}, but wanted to let you know for next time, and in case there are others. Ingrid 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Actually, I'm going to restore those images - they aren't copyvios after all. Rklawton 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:A01 6025 640x427.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:A01 6025 640x427.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- One of my first image uploads. It's long since been moved to Commons, so I deleted Wikipedia version. Rklawton 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
One source tag on Lonnie Frisbee
Greetings, I've newer to wikiland so wanted to give a heads up that I'd like to remove the one source tag on the Lonnie Frisbee article or if you need to please do so. Benjiboi 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Vandal
WTF was that all about??? Feel free to WP:DENY here - Alison ☺ 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just another FP sock. He's nice enough to number them for easy recogniztion. Rklawton 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow - what a weirdo :) He really likes you! - Alison ☺ 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Power Analytics, Power Systems Engineering, etc.
I'm going to take the Evelyn Beatrice Hall view of the removal of the pages mentioned above. While the content described a new and serious technology -- featured in Wired magazine and Business 2.0 in recent months -- I see where "maintaining Order" is necessary to prevent WikiChaos. I'm going to rework and repost the pages in question, in closer accordance with the style guideline you shared. All I ask is that you don't penalize it for being new, or being invented by a single entity. Look forward to passing the grade. JneumannJrneumann 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good approach. Use reliable, verifiable sources, write it up so it doesn't read like an advert, and you should be good. Another bit of advice - write it up first and once you've got it polished, post it. Send me a link if you like. It's obvious that the power industry uses some sort of real-time power monitoring and management system, and an article about it would be worthwhile. Just make sure the article isn't hyping any one product. Rklawton 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
User page protection
Could you protect this user page? User talk:Eddie Guimont user posted a middle finger image after being blocked for harassment. Momusufan 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Done - (sorry for butting into your talk page!) Ryan Postlethwaite 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. Rklawton 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Silver-nitrate-2D.svg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JamieKennedyJoyCantrilo.jpg#filehistory){kind=link}
){kind=link}
tell me this
how come people can be blocked for being a sock puppet bt on the article of a wikipedia sockpuppet it says that it is not wrong? AUS99 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Blocks apply to the editor and not just to the account. If an account is blocked and the editor creates a new account, then that account can be immediately blocked. We call it "block evasion". Rklawton 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blocking those two accounts. No sooner did I have the sock puppet tags on the accounts and it was done. Thanks again, Mkdwtalk 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. You should archive this page. =) Mkdwtalk 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Opinion sought: Perro de Presa Canario
The article is Perro de Presa Canario - a rare breed of dog. The article is straightforward and informative and is generally positive in tone regarding the dog. Unfortunately, however, there have been two separate cases since 2001 in America where somebody has been KILLED by an attack by one or more of these dogs. A little bit of research leads me to believe that on average appx. 10 people TOTAL are killed by dog attack in the US per year. With numbers so low ANY fatal mauling is news and strikes me as being encyclopedic. One of these attacks involving Presa Canarios was very high profile - the case of Diane Whipple who was killed in the hallway of her apartment building by two of these dogs.
To make a long story short, there is a group of editors who are Presa Canario lovers who are refusing to allow references to these attacks in the article. I have made the language regarding the attacks as matter-of-fact and npov as possible: From the article:
- On January 26, 2001, Diane Whipple of San Francisco, California was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario dogs in the hallway of her apartment building.
- On Friday, August 18, 2006, a 120 lb. Presa Canario fatally mauled a Florida woman, Shawna Willey of Coral Springs. The victim, the dog's owner, was giving the dog a bath when it attacked. Police responding to the emergency felt threatened by the dog and shot and killed it.[17]
-End from the article This group, at least one member of which appears to be a dealer/breeder of the dogs, repeatedly remove this section from the article, claiming that reporting the sourced stories of these attacks is POV - as well as unfair, untrue, inaccurate, etc.
I'm at wit's end regarding this. I and any number of other editors have laid out the facts time and again on the article's Talk page, to no avail. This has been going on since August, 2006 when the second dog attack occurred.
Do you have any opinion? Advice? Course of action?
What say you? --AStanhope 06:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
i would suggest
I would suggest that you unblock user:jagzthebest and user:MasterEditor99 because they seem to have nothing and wrong and i am one for justice and not for bias. many thanks AUS99 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: CSD on SKY U
Hi there. Just a quick FYI, SKYSHAPERS (talk · contribs), the SKY U creator, first blanked the page after your edit then removed your modifications to the page and replaced it with the original CSD-nominated material. Most recently, Arienh4 (talk · contribs) reverted those edits back to yours. I'm not sure what to do in this case, so I'm leaving it to you to decide. :P If you get a chance, lemme know what you think so that I know what to do in the future. Thanks a million, and sorry for the headache. =) --koder 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:David Chase
Sorry to disagree with you, but my post at Talk:David Chase is to stem the growing flow of incorrect facts reported by the media on this matter. I continue to monitor news feeds and see one media outlet after another reprints TG Daily's post. TG Daily contains in accurate facts about the event. To address your concern, I added that the post is directed to media outlets. The article is protected so I doubt my post will encourage the trolls or feed the vandals any more than protecting the article will encourage the trolls or feed the vandals. If you disagree, please discuss this with me before making any more changes to my talk page post. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- So it's a good idea to use article talk pages to communicate with the media regarding their inaccurate reporting? That's going to make things a bit more complicated don't you think? Rklawton 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to add my thanks to Robert Lawton for editing the Bernard J. Taylor page. This seems to be the only way I can enter this discussion board or contact you. There is a flag on the Bernard J. Taylor page that says the page relies too much on a single source (i.e. myself) but there are many independent international references to his work to be found by googling bernard-j-taylor. I have provided links to the most important of these, such as the Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music. As for his books attracting a cult following, there is another adult yahoo group devoted to his BDSM trilogy. This has over 3000 members (much larger than the yahoo groups for most writers). However, I do not wish to cite the address of the group publicly, since it contains material that might be offensive to some people. If you wish to delete the reference to a cult following, that is ok with me. Siebahn 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Siebahn
- Correction, you are not the "one source". I was refering to the citations used to support the facts in the article. All facts in the article should be supported with citations from verifiable and reliable sources. Rklawton 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I have read the templates on citations etc, but I cannot see what I can add to the links and references I have already provided. Obviously I am still struggling to find my way around here. Siebahn
- No worries. Mainly, we'd just like to see more citations. Has his work received any reviews or awards? Have any biographical articles about him been published? These would all be most helpful. Rklawton 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There are many reviews cited on the website for both recordings and productions. There are other independent reviews to be found on various websites. Here are some that are related to Pride and Prejudice: http://www.filmscore.be/reviews/titel.php?id=156, http://bronteana.wordpress.com/2006/01/, http://www.zene.hu/programok/reszletek.php?id=17238, http://www.mirror.org/ken.roberts/jane.austen.html, http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9807b&L=austen-l&P=333, http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~chris/bronte/news02.pdf, http://www.musicalfans.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=17478, http://www.myspace.com/catherinelouis, http://bronteana.wordpress.com/tag/music/, http://wap.apropos.borda.ru/?1-3-0-00000007-000-0-0-1173970336). Similar reviews can be found for his other musicals by googling bernard-j-taylor with the name of the musical (I will find them for you and post them here if you really want me to). Other independent reviews can be found on Amazon.com (for books and music) as well as other online book and music outlets. Siebahn
- I suggest taking reviews from the most prestigious sources and adding them to the article. Rklawton 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I cited reviews in my original article, but these were removed. As far as awards are concerned, there are no major awards to date (since no productions on Broadway or the West End, though many productions elsewhere), but the 1995 production of Nosferatu was named as best production of the year by the Illinois Journal Star. The main biographical profile is in the Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music, which gives two pages to Taylor (about as much as it gives to Sondheim and more than it gives to Loyd webber). Siebahn.
I have reintroduced reviews as suggested. Can we now remove the tag? Siebahn.
- After some thought, I've removed the reviews. It really isn't standard to include lengthy (or even any) quotes of reviews for composers' works (compare other articles in Category:American musical theatre composers) and given the general pattern of edits around this topic, the overall impression they give is of promotional intent. Awards, if available, are better as nonsubjective evidence of acclaim. Gordonofcartoon 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
THANKYOU
Thank You Rklawton for your welcome and the links to guidance for submitting info / editing. Also for your cleaning up of the info on The Scary Guy article. Hopefully it won't be deleted. As a new user I am learning ... steadily! I am trying to put the information back together appropriately on The Scary Guy page. So Thanks again for your help and your welcome. Whatevernext 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Terrell Newman
I note you removed the loglines on the Terrell Newman page basis that they are copyrighted. If you had checked with me I could have told you that they are in the public domain as they have been published on numerous open websites. Moreover, I have Taylor's permission to offer them free of copyright. I would like to put them back (as they help to give those interested an idea of what the books are about) but I don't want to do this if it is just going to be deleted again. Siebahn
PS You can email me at Siebahn@aol.com. Siebahn
- Assuming Taylor still owns the rights to his work (as opposed to his publisher), then his permission is sufficient. As for re-adding the lines, I think less marketing-oriented language would be more appropriate. Think "encyclopedia." Rklawton 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Shared IP addresses
Thanks for letting me know – I misread the time stamp and thought he had vandalized within the last few minutes. I'm about to go nuts trying to figure out which time stamp on what page is on my time (Central Daylight) and which is on UTC – the difference is -5 hours in the summer and -6 hours during the winter, which I've known since I was a teenager. The problem: I read the IP's 13:43 time stamp as CDT instead of UTC, so I thought he was still vandalizing. I'm learning more about the buttons every day, but this time difference is really giving me a headache. I need some chocolate and a nap. If you haven't already, feel free to change or unblock; I don't get worked up about someone changing something I did (see my user page). Thanks again – KrakatoaKatie 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
north korea discussions
my apologies for the nature of our previous interactions. work was bogging down and i apologize for writing you off as one more amateur editor who wanted to come through and "eliminate all this propoganda and block the dprk lovers". I was growing tired of hosting north korea 101 forums and the nature of the questions you were asking were a bit off-putting and i found offensive but i see now i misunderstood your intentions and i appreciate your restraint in not removing and replacing text without firsthand understanding of the issues. I felt a mutual hostility and now that you have been around the page a while i see it was unnecessary to feel as such. My feeling, in editing the north korea topics, is that there is far too much misinformation and personal uneducated opinions that a previal so that attention that rightfully should be given to issues of human rights and freedom of expression are wasted unnecessarily on condemning the whole of north korean government as "one evil machine since the beginning, founded on tyrany". Anyway, this is mostly to thank you for the level approach - i was suprised by your compromised government description and i appreciate your efforts to find the neutral solution :) thanks - Icactus 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion Candidates
Can you please work on the backlog of speedy deletion candidates? I've never asked that of an admin before, but I feel like I've been tagging articles that meet the criteria but never seem to get deleted. Clamster 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. Will do. Rklawton 02:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Clamster 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Surrey Centre
I noticed that you removed a speedy tag I'd added to Surrey Centre and removed the spam bits. I tagged the page because it was utterly non-notable and consisted solely of a list of stores. It is also a re-creation of a page of the same name created by the same user (see: User talk:DAP384) that was speedied. The user that created it also created several other similar pages that I tagged - several of these were successfully speedied by User:Dsmdgold.
As such, I do not believe that this article is fit for Wikipedia, and that even without spam, it is not salvagable as there is too little information that can be put into it. I also fear that User:DAP384, who created it, will simply come back and re-add the parts you deleted (he should be watched-out for, as he might also re-create his other pages, but that's something else entirely). Astrovega 04:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. However, re-creations of speedied pages should go to AfD. I certainly wouldn't object. Rklawton 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
I hope my contributions here are in keeping with best practices and consistent with the goals of the wikipedia community. --Thesurveyor 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Account
This Accoount was made in your Honour. You should be proud. Rklawton1 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr Lawton
dedi madi phude. du bist nicht su gut vilea vicente. dank ya Rklawton11 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
funeral edit
Hi. You just made this edit to funeral, where your edit summary and the change you made did not seem to match. I'm just pointing it out in case the edit was not what you intended. -- SiobhanHansa 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Comment moved from user page
Sorry, I do not know where to put this message, but just so you know, my 'Vandalism' of the North Korea page was infact me attempting to undo another piece of vandalism by another user. The person had deleted the content and replaced it with silly stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thannad (talk • contribs)
- I've rechecked the article's edit history, and I see you probably edit-conflicted with a bot that was already fixing the problem. That happens sometimes. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and please accept my apologies. Happy editing - Rklawton 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
AStanhope's block
I am appealing the block placed on User:Astanhope. I would have posted earlier but I was waiting for his response on his talk page (here) I was (and still am, for the most part) unfamiliar with his other acts of vandalism (I am assuming they were minor and few, not that it's any excuse) until I saw the last block. I'm not necessarily looking to have it lifted immediately (though having seen his latest response I think that "soon" would be justified), just shortened (your discretion, of course, but I was thinking 4 to 7 days would be plenty). My reasons are as follows:
- (1) 1 month is pretty long by most standards.
- (2 The main reason he needed the block initially (and I think your were in the right to do it) was his flippant attitude toward your attempts to bring him back into line. He is contrite/apologetic now, and that's a crucial difference (esp. for someone who's been here over 2 yrs and a lot of edits).
- (3) Blocks are not meant to be punitive, given the change in the way he reacted (or attitude), there is reason to believe he will behave differentlly.
- (4) He's had a lot of productive edits, and when there's disagreement, he does discuss it on talk pages (
full disclosure here: where there have been arguments over content he and I have tended to agreeI suppose that would be obvious now that I read over that).
Thanks for your consideration of this matter, and your vigilance in general.
Regards,
R. Baley 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Astanhope's previous acts (the one's I've found) focused on subtly vandalizing articles in such a way as to cause Wikipedia maximum embarrassment at the height of media scrutiny. He did so as a seasoned and trusted editor. Specifically he vandalized the Gerald Ford article on the day he died, a day when this article would receive the maximum number of hits. He then repeated this exact same type of vandalism to the Jerry Falwell article on the day he died a few months later. Again, these acts of vandalism were calculated to cause Wikipedia the most amount of embarrassment possible. I've been reviewing only two or three of his edits a week and chose to review yesterday an article which he created himself and added to his own user page. I realize that's not a "random" sample. But given the position of prominence he gave it, I assumed it was work he took pride in. It should have been a slam dunk credit to Astanhope's rehabilitation. Instead, this particular article included an element of vandalism mocking a minority group that has already suffered considerably in this country. As per my comments on Astanhope's talk page, this sort of behavior from an editor who already knows better simply isn't excusable. Another administrator, one with 40,000 edits (as opposed to my 20,000 edits), reviewed and denied Astanhope's unblock request. Astanhope has pleaded previously and promised to behave. He hasn't, and I see no reason to give his current pleas any credibility. Therefore, I have no intention of removing the one month block from his account. Rklawton 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Henry s.jacobs camp
A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Henry s.jacobs camp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
RE:User:Raybeard
Yes I noticed you removed the speedy deletion template, so I quickly removed the note from the talk. I realised my error at much the same time as you did. I realise I was moving quickly, and I somehow missed the user namespace (it is 3 am where I am, if that means anything). Oh well, its no excuse. But I hope you can sort of understand. Obviously userspace doesnt qualify for db-bio, but I did actually think it was in the namespace for some odd reason. Thanks, and I hope you wont have to revert any of my silly mistakes again, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 19:30, 21 June 2007 UTC)
- Mistakes happen from time to time. Just mind the frequency. Rklawton 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right. It might also be an idea to not edit at 3 in the morning too, when I cant sleep but should be trying to :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 19:36, 21 June 2007 UTC)
RAB archive 3 deletion, mentioned on RAB chat page
Saw your message, but I don't know where I might look to see what you are talking about. the archive itself seems intact and unedited? It also seems to be a valid record of the conversation. Sandpiper 11:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Canada Goose
FYI. I moved the picture to my own user page if you would like to look. I am still trying to get use to the camera phone that I just got last week. Is there any way I can get good pictures with this phone to ensure better quality? Please advise. Sorry about that. Chris 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Camera phones
I am in my first foray into digital cameras so I hope I don't get into them. What specifically do you take pictures [with] if you don't mind my asking? Chris 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming I understand your question correctly, I use a Canon EOS 20D. My user page has a photo of it, and the photo page links to the camera's article if you'd like more information. Rklawton 02:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for answering this question. I will stick with my camera phone for the time being. Chris 02:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Illinois Images
Hey guy, long time no talk. I was wondering, have you been able to take any pictures down there in southern Illinois at all? Just curious as I am about to trek out and take a few pictures of some of the small areas up here in the north. Have to upload another cemetery to the Commons first though. Hmm, just notice, you may want to archive your page some, 224 messages, wow!--Kranar drogin 02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm heading down next week. I'm also working on a new type of archive software that archives by relevant namespace. Rklawton 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cool! If you swing through Springfield, we are going to need as much as you get get from there in images. Otherwise, need small towns and stuff, whatever you can shoot with that fancy camera!--Kranar drogin 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Springfield is "up" for me. I'm heading for Mound City National Cemetery and a few NRH places inbetween. Rklawton 02:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I got confused I think! Dual Freq has been taking pictures of like township buildings, town/village post offices, fire stations, grain elevators, stuff that is associated with the towns. I know you say you are going to get NRH places and whatnot, but if you could grab these pics too just as you go along, that would be awesome. Actually, anything that would be an article for Illinois. Some of the state or even the national park down there would be cool. Sorry, I am throwing all this out at you. Just ideas. I am sure you have a list. I think a western portion of the Shawnee National Forest even goes over into the area you will be driving.--Kranar drogin 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will also work on getting the southern county's townships done, work a bit tonight.--Kranar drogin 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I should be able to visit Springfield a few times in September. Rklawton 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WeeWeeSlap
I recently updated the No Limits (software) page, where CoasterCrazy.com was delted, and WeeWeeSlap.com was kept. I then went on to create a WeeWeeSlap wiki page....
I cannnot understand why No Limits (software) was reverted back to the pre-my changes, and weeweeslap wiki page was deleted, as it is one of the top rollercoaster fan/exchange sites, it was accused of not being accurate enough, my only referance was the No Limits (software) wiki page, which they say that weeweeslap.com link was only there because i put it there, which was not true, it was there before i added it there
also that Coastercrazy.com was re-added to the No Limits (software) .. it nolonger exists, i was only updating it to the most accurate information
Could you please look into this?
Acasperw 09:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For endless effort at reverting vandalism on Wikipedia (and earning yourself lots of userpage vandalism in return - always the sign of a great RC Patroller), I award you with this wonderful Anti-vandalism barnstar. Well done, & keep up the good work! ;-) Lradrama 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC) |
Aw shucks. Rklawton 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary on Talk:Iwo Jima
Please do not write inappropriate edit summaries. As you well know, this is considered disruptive behaviour. Use of the word "troll" is not encouraged on Wikipedia, particularly in regards to established editors who are clearly not engaging in vandalism. Exploding Boy 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I trust you'll be posting the appropriate apology on the offended user's talk page. Rklawton 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Exploding Boy 16:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I found this comment you added to a your survey regarding another user's signature off topic and insulting to the user in question. Given that you see fit to take offense at such things, you're welcome to offer this user a personal apology. You don't have to, of course. Rklawton 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that you didn't get the joke ("older != wiser" in the context of a comment in support keeping an outdated place name rather than switching to a new one) notwithstanding, your edit summary ("removed troll - let's keep this constructive") was inappropriate. Even if you believe another user is engaging in disruptive behaviour that does not give you the licence to do so as well. Exploding Boy 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The way it reads to me is that you were telling this user that his decision to oppose your suggestion lacked wisdom. I could have this entirely wrong. Perhaps I misunderstood your joke. If so, then by all means explain exactly what you meant by your post so that I can understand it. Rklawton 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Removing disruptive comments and admonishing editors to keep a thread constructive is appropriate. Per WP:TROLL Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Devolving a thread from a discussion about a geographic place name to insults about an editor's wisdom regarding their opinion constitutes trolling by this definition. Rklawton 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above, the fact that you don't get the joke is irrelevant. Even if you thought the edit was not civil, there's no reason not to be civil yourself. Seeing that I'm a long established user who has been participating civilly on that page, you could simply have dropped me a note asking me to remove the comment; on reflection, I probably would have. Or you could have removed it with a simple edit summary regarding off-topic conversation: totally valid in this case. WP:TROLL, however, does not apply. WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy, does. Exploding Boy 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Added in response to your question above, it simply struck me as funny, in the context of a discussion about the "wisdom" of keeping an "old" name for an article title, that the user's signature says "older does not equal wiser." It's not a hilarious joke, I'll allow, and it's definitely off-topic, but it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack. Just something that made me chuckle. Anyway, I don't want to make a bigger thing of this than it is, so I don't think I have anything else to say on the subject. Thanks. Exploding Boy 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: can i have some help
can u tell me how to take off these images off please or can you take these images off because they are of a freind and he has decided he no longer wants them on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagjeet1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagjeet2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagjeet3.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jagjeet4.jpg
Oluk 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Isabel S. Martinez
I intially created this page. In its talk page I requested more time to find more info on the subject. Since it was originally tagged I found 2 more references and had posted it there. yesterday I was able to actually speak to the person in question and she gave me additional information that was going to include. Can I get the article put back in? or is there someway i can recreate it and place it back in? thanks for your assistance Callelinea 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. However, if the new information doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO, I'll nominate the article for deletion. Rklawton 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I try to do my edits tonight. Callelinea 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not finished yet.. Callelinea 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF I have not come close to WP:3RR "It says An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I have done two edits i have removed your over the top comment as i am allowed to removed personal attacks "Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." ExtraDry 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm allowed to remove things off my talkpage, Any more posts from you will be removed, I dont like your rudeness. ExtraDry 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Warning you before blocking you is a courtesy - not a rudeness. If you prefer, I can simply block you without warning you, but that's hardly typical. And yes, you may remove whatever you like from your talk page - as per my earlier comment. Rklawton 05:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Moe closed the topic, does he have the autority to do so? The guy has no respect and treated people like dirt. I want to know if his his action to close it can be reverted? He closed the section off because he cant have a discussion and everyone seemed against him. BigCoop 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- His action was uncivil. It can certainly be reverted. However, he has a point about keeping a thread on-topic (improving the article). You might want to move the thread over to AN/I to see what other admins have to say about the odd post (and drop the Moe-issue). Coincidences happen, it's true. However, the media may not see it that way, and back-office folk rarely like surprise calls from the MSM. Rklawton 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for giving me credit for breaking the Benoit story. I think someone should create a special award for Moe and the guy who blocked me for the biggest bonehead positions in the history of Wikipedia. Wesleymullins 03:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you save all those MSM articles for your scrap book; you da man. Bonehead awards would work against the general philosophy of spreading the love (and the knowledge), but I see your point. Rklawton 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher_Afzal_Khan_Barikoti
Hi Robert, Just looked a website I was working on & saw that you had pruned it quite excessively. The site in question is www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher_Afzal_Khan_Barikoti. Just wondered why the images of the various text extracts had been deleted. Was there a problem with their copyright tags? Or was there some other issue? I would be grateful for your reply. Thanks, Yusuf Zaiuk
- The problem was primarily with their copyright tags. However, I'm also not sure that posting non-English text would be very helpful to readers of an English language encyclopedia. We don't need scanned pages to see that the author wrote a book. Rklawton 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The scanned pages weren't put on the page as proof of the books existing, but are intended for those few English readers who are also familar with the Pashto language, to see certain extracts from those books. I don't think there's any harm in that. Also, if you're going to be so fussy then why not remove the images showing the covers of the books as well & simply leave their titles? If the latter is the real reason for your editing (i.e. you're not happy with a different language appearing on an English site) then your editing is unwarranted.
- You didn't address my primary concern. Rklawton 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your primary concern is unfounded. I contacted David M of wikipedia helpline to check on the tags & let him know those items were eligible for display. I will recheck just to make sure they were correctly tagged & re-upload them again.
Business.com
I didn't delete cited material, unless there's a strange policy that says citations need not have any relation to the material that they are claimed to be in support of. The problem was that the material before the cite wasn't actually contained within the cite. Did you even look at the citation for the material I deleted? Snakesouls 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. My bad. Sorry about that. I hope you reverted my *ss. Rklawton 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. Have to admit I went a little overboard after seeing how they were advising people to manipulate Wikipedia by adding "noise" to cover up unfavorable press. CheerssssSnakesouls 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Vandal problem
Hello, we share same interests so I thought I will leave you a message, i need to report a vandal, he keeps on reverting things and connecting me with some other people, something needs to be done here asap, i'd appreciate it, is there an email i can email you, over here, I dont want to mess things up or create controversy and there is a lot to say. Take care. p.s. Tell me more about your photography, if you need anything, i can help with local snapshots/photos, whatever is of interest to me and you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.148 (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for your offer to help yout. You may report vandalism here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will be along shortly to help you out. You will find photography requests here: Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else. Rklawton 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanx for fast reply. I know, if I go there, i will only create problems, since I may be linked to some suspended user, is there a way i can email you? You seem like an honest man with proper knowledge for life.
As far as photography goes I am close to the great lakes, just ask me, if I can, I'll see what I can do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.148 (talk • contribs)
- It sounds like you've already been blocked from editing. Rklawton 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not ask for an opinion, if I was, I would not have written you. No, I am not blocked, never mind now. As far as photography goes, some of my work has been used for geographical projects, including fine publications such as National Geographic explorer.
- You need to archive this page.
Hope things are well
Thescary1 (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for all of your help.
- No worries. Spread The Love. Rklawton 04:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Image
Ok, I didn't see where the image uploader said that it was ok. Had I saw it, I wouldn't have reverted or asked the user to verify it. — Moe ε 20:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
Alison was referring to the fact that a spoofer (user:Alllison) denied user:Wesleymullins's block, not she. There is more on both talk pages. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh! Rklawton 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read what he wrote on my talk page?? What is that guy's game? LOL!! - Alison ☺ 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read it and understood it. Taken out of context, I can see how his post on your talk page sounded pretty far out. However, how he was treated (by others) was also pretty far out, too. Given his treatment as a whole (I've been participating in this since his first post on Monday), I don't think his post was over the top. That is, he is justifiably miffed and looking for vindication (and not yet getting it). However, he made a very unfortunate mistake when he fell for a spoofer's trick. I trust he'll apologize. Rklawton 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he's barking up the wrong tree here and, to be honest, I've not been following the whole Benoit thing at all, other than superficially - Alison ☺ 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read it and understood it. Taken out of context, I can see how his post on your talk page sounded pretty far out. However, how he was treated (by others) was also pretty far out, too. Given his treatment as a whole (I've been participating in this since his first post on Monday), I don't think his post was over the top. That is, he is justifiably miffed and looking for vindication (and not yet getting it). However, he made a very unfortunate mistake when he fell for a spoofer's trick. I trust he'll apologize. Rklawton 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read what he wrote on my talk page?? What is that guy's game? LOL!! - Alison ☺ 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just curious as to why this was deleted. It was hardly spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svend Blackmere (talk • contribs)
- This what?
Bret Miles Jr.
I am wondering what would need to be added to the article that you deleted to make it comply with wiki policy. Bret Miles Jr has had article written about him in national and regional magazines on the subject of Late Model racing and Short Track racing. Do these articles need to be sited?
Late Model Digest Motorsports Lounge (online forum) Autoracing Daily (Print and online) craracing.net Indianapolis Star Muncie Star Press Anderson Herald Bulletin Nation Speed Sport News Track Talk (radio news show in Central Indiana)
Also what is the copy right violated on the page. The picture is mine that was uploaded.
69.210.11.167 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Another editor tagged it with copyright problems; but I think I've fixed those. Yes! Please cite the various articles to support each of the facts included in the article. The link to your own website should be included under an "External links" section but not otherwise used as a reference. Don't hesitate to ask if you need additional help. Rklawton 21:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Your AfD advise
Frankly, I do not think your advise in this matter makes any sense. Since I have contacted others that I value their imput as being un-biased. Your comments as just simply stating as not notable, I would hardly think are really edits. Have you bothered to read my notes on the discussion pages or my notes? Doesn't really matter now. I think that after writing almost 100 articles and correcting hundreds of vandalism incidents that I find it funny that in a process of 2 weeks 7 articles of mine are being removed. Thats fine because soon I will no longer be a member of Wikipedia, obviously my articles and edits are not wellcome. Callelinea 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you can't follow the rules, then that's probably for the best. Rklawton 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Callelinea
Yeah, I noticed, thanks. All of them have been speedy closed and Callelinea blocked for an hour. Corvus cornix 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- The hour is now up... Rklawton 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure he's not done being disruptive. Corvus cornix 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes,I agree that it is not polite to harass other editors. But I have to admit Callinea makes it fun. I myself am not an editor, nor have I ever edited other than to improve Callinea's work. I will pull back the sponge diving horde only because you have been so civil in your requests. The pretentious Callinea with his reactions and his useless personal interest articles fueled the fire.
- You are welcome. If you notice any more "useless personal interest articles", please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention - or to nominate them yourself for deletion. Rklawton 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm coming to you for guidance on this. If you take a look at the Find A Grave page, you will see that it has a tag for "notability." The *complaint* appears to be a lack of "published" references. I added an entire new section to the article referencing several external websites that reference Find A Grave. A few hours later, the "notability" tag was back in place and my new section was deleted, with the comment that my references were "random." What the heck is this person looking for? Does publication on a website not "count" as publication because it's electrons instead of paper, or what? Countedx58 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's notable. I'll see what I can sort out. Rklawton 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your assistance. Countedx58 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It would also help if you would keep an eye open for articles specifically about the Find a Grave website (not just mentions). Most web references to the cite are only "mentions". Yet Wikipedia has 900+ article links to the Find a Grave article. It's obviously notable with its 16 million+ records. Rklawton 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your assistance. Countedx58 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Talk:Harry Potter and the sorceres stone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- db-talk, actually. I've deleted it. Rklawton 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Another vandal
Thank you for your help with User:Ibm44. I was hoping that you can look into Special:Contributions/64.195.243.2. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding IP addresses, but this IP has been actively vandalizing. :) Thanks. Tiggerjay 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Given that one bit of vandalism in the past two weeks, you've taken the correct action so far. Rklawton 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how about a new one... User:Lol0075 Thanks Tiggerjay 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Resolved by another admin. :) Tiggerjay 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
RGS School House
No I can't. I'd just read the summary which suggested it had been deleted. Thanks for pointing this out. I suppose it should be reverted to the redirect, although I don't see this as a necessary redirect seeing as there is no information on this subject in the RGS article. The post in front was made by Popexvi 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I've just put it up for AfD. Rklawton 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
J. K. Rowling free picture wanted
What about retrieving it from here? greg park avenue 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- That particular image is fully copyrighted. Rklawton 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My Apology
I wanted to offer my apologies for doubting your initial good faith critisms of my articles. I have come to that realization after just reading Tabercil's talk page now. Perhaps if I had read that before I would not have become so paranoid. Lately though I do feel that because of our "bad blood" between us, you are no longer taking my edits or critisims on "good faith" and I would like to ask you to please try to. When you get a chance please read what I wrote to Tabercil and maybe that will help you understand, why I intially thought you were acting under "bad faith". Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding, and I will try to in the future take you corrections on face value. Callelinea 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Any possibility of you withdrawing your AfD nominiation of this article, since no one has voted to delete it? Thanks for your consideration. Callelinea 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Fermanagheditor
Hi. If you look back, you'll see this user has a history of uploading copyvio images. I did try to assume good faith but I fear that Vintagekits is right in his suspicion that the young user did not take the Clinton photo. I deleted them but as I said I will happily undelete if the user can provide any evidence they took them themselves. Best wishes, --John 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Fermanagheditor
Thankyou for your help. Your right If I was lying I would lie again but im not lying. I DID take all them pictures myself and tried to edit wikipedia to the best of my ability but because im 'young' its assumed I DIDNT take these pictures becuase I would have been only 12 when President Clinton came to my town Enniskillen.
I have been putoff wikipedia by all of this and at the end of the day all i wanted to do was make it better but every effort I made to improve or create articles I had useres breathing down my back.
I think only users like yourself should have the great honur of administrator usage.
user:Fermanagheditor (03:23am)
- Some of those images were taking before I was born. Rklawton 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Pictures and licenses
I'm wondering if you can help me. The article on Saginaw Bay has a very unhelpful image. I found an Environmental Protection Agancy image in PDF format that would fit very nicely into the article.
- A) Can we use it? Is it public domain?
- B) Where can I seek help converting it to a useful format?
Thanks in advance. --Elliskev 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The EPA is federal, so its copyright is through them - so it should be free. You'll want to sort through the licensing options and select the one that says something like "... work of the federal government." Be sure to include a link to the source so other editors can see for themselves. As far as how to convert it - that will all depend on the software you have. I suggest just selecting the image area and copy/paste it into MS Paint. You can convert the image to JPG from there. Rklawton 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks a bunch. --Elliskev 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You
I disagree, like you I also have done my research, and the problem you have had with me is not the first time. You might of started off with the best of intensions, but lately you really havn't. Its sad because you really do fine work, but you seam to think no one has the right to go agaist you or that you are always right, from what I can tell from what I have checked about about you that has been your problem and it really is a shame. Well good luck to you.Callelinea 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously your "checking" has been superficial. And your numerous rule violations speak clearly to all. Rklawton 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope I have also spoken to those other editors that have had problems with you in the past, I make sure I check out my sources in detail.Callelinea 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's all trivial compared to the problems you are having now. Rklawton 13:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am having no problems at al lately, only those you decide to create. I was just giving you constructive critisism. Unlike you, I am not on a power kick, nor trying to prove my superiority to anyone, I am only trying to contribute to wikipedia, which i feel is being accomplished by my thoughtful and helpful edits and contributions.Callelinea 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's good to know - because for awhile there you were being quite disruptive. Now, I would like to direct your attention to our civility guidelines - lines you frequently cross. If you continue to cross them, you will find yourself officially warned. Consider this just a friendly notice, one that won't even appear on your talk page. Rklawton 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am having no problems at al lately, only those you decide to create. I was just giving you constructive critisism. Unlike you, I am not on a power kick, nor trying to prove my superiority to anyone, I am only trying to contribute to wikipedia, which i feel is being accomplished by my thoughtful and helpful edits and contributions.Callelinea 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's all trivial compared to the problems you are having now. Rklawton 13:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope I have also spoken to those other editors that have had problems with you in the past, I make sure I check out my sources in detail.Callelinea 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
AStanhope
Hi Rklawton. I notice you blocked Adam for vandalism for a month. Do you have some diffs of what he did? (or just point me in the direction of the articles). I'm trying to figure out why he was blocked for so long, I'll need to see what he's done (in case it was really bad). Thanks. Neil ╦ 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I found this [18], a 7-month-old old edit to Gerald Ford ([19]), and a similar 5-month-old one to Jerry Falwell ([20] and [21]). All bar the first edit, you had already previously blocked him for those, labelling them as vandalism ([22]). Based on these edits, it looks like you blocked a user with many many thousands of good edits for a month for one unreferenced sentence that said "Passagassawakeag means land of flatulence" or something similar. I must be missing something, so please let me know what it is. Neil ╦ 11:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Neil, basically, we have a trusted editor using his position to insert vandalism into articles. The first two examples you found above were added on the day these high-profile individuals died. This guaranteed that his vandalism would achieve maximum visibility. When called on it, he insisted his edits were accurate and true - he even reverted their removal a few times (something he later tried to deny). When caught, he resorted to insults and harassment rather than apology. Eventually he got around to apologizing and promising never to do that sort of thing again. In the third example, you can clearly see that he did it again. Adam's edit isn't simply unsourced – it's the deliberate addition of false information as well as defamation of a minority group. He's admitted that it was vandalism, though he refused to acknowledge that his joke abused a minority. So the bottom line is this: we've got an experienced editor who has repeatedly abused our trust to vandalize high profile articles – one who has promised never to do it again – and who has been unable to stop himself anyway. He has requested an unblock, and another admin has denied his request. As a result of all this, I object to lifting his block and will not hesitate to block him for six months should he choose to vandalize again. Rklawton 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- His block expires in four days now anyway, so it's nearly moot. But thanks for the response. I definitely agree with your block, and would have done so myself, but perhaps not a month - I think one of this length to an experienced editor can end up provoking bad behaviour and driving a user with 3 bad edits and 3300 good ones away from the encyclopaedia; this is not the purpose of the block. A month (and as you suggest, 6 months in future) seems punitive rather than preventative. Neil ╦ 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Consider this: novice editors and anonymous IP's vandalizing articles in Wikipedia is hardly newsworthy anymore. Journalists with deadlines and no news have pretty well beaten that story to death. However, an experienced editor vandalizing a president's article on the day he dies is another story entirely. Do you really want that editor to continue editing Wikipedia – especially after he has demonstrated and admitted his inability to control himself? Can you imagine the publicity fallout should a reporter catch him the next time? Essjay was bad enough, but he wasn't actually vandalizing articles. The headlines in Adam's case would read something like:
- "Even Experienced Editors Get in on the Fun(?)"
- "You'd Think You Could Trust a Seasoned Editor"
- "Long-time Editors don't take Wikipedia Seriously, Why Should You?"
- "3,300 Edits, but how Many are Legit?"
- My concerns aren't punitive. My concerns are entirely preventative. I would prefer if Adam didn't resume editing. But if he does, I hope you will help watch his contributions carefully. Rklawton 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think there we differ ... I would prefer he he did resume editing. Just not vandalising. Neil ╦ 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if we had a choice in the matter. However, we have no ability to make him change his ways. Rklawton 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think there we differ ... I would prefer he he did resume editing. Just not vandalising. Neil ╦ 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Consider this: novice editors and anonymous IP's vandalizing articles in Wikipedia is hardly newsworthy anymore. Journalists with deadlines and no news have pretty well beaten that story to death. However, an experienced editor vandalizing a president's article on the day he dies is another story entirely. Do you really want that editor to continue editing Wikipedia – especially after he has demonstrated and admitted his inability to control himself? Can you imagine the publicity fallout should a reporter catch him the next time? Essjay was bad enough, but he wasn't actually vandalizing articles. The headlines in Adam's case would read something like:
- His block expires in four days now anyway, so it's nearly moot. But thanks for the response. I definitely agree with your block, and would have done so myself, but perhaps not a month - I think one of this length to an experienced editor can end up provoking bad behaviour and driving a user with 3 bad edits and 3300 good ones away from the encyclopaedia; this is not the purpose of the block. A month (and as you suggest, 6 months in future) seems punitive rather than preventative. Neil ╦ 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Neil, basically, we have a trusted editor using his position to insert vandalism into articles. The first two examples you found above were added on the day these high-profile individuals died. This guaranteed that his vandalism would achieve maximum visibility. When called on it, he insisted his edits were accurate and true - he even reverted their removal a few times (something he later tried to deny). When caught, he resorted to insults and harassment rather than apology. Eventually he got around to apologizing and promising never to do that sort of thing again. In the third example, you can clearly see that he did it again. Adam's edit isn't simply unsourced – it's the deliberate addition of false information as well as defamation of a minority group. He's admitted that it was vandalism, though he refused to acknowledge that his joke abused a minority. So the bottom line is this: we've got an experienced editor who has repeatedly abused our trust to vandalize high profile articles – one who has promised never to do it again – and who has been unable to stop himself anyway. He has requested an unblock, and another admin has denied his request. As a result of all this, I object to lifting his block and will not hesitate to block him for six months should he choose to vandalize again. Rklawton 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)