Loading AI tools
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 6, 2006 and January 29, 2007.
Hi Jersey, DavidShankBone has uploaded a few pics depicting puppets of South American leaders on their respective pages - Evo Morales was the one that caught my eye. To be honest they are not to my taste. I think they look a bit daft and distract from some of the serious subject matter in the articles, there was one on the Hugo Chavez coup page which was totally out of place! I've spoken to David about this but he insists that they are relevant. Please take a look if you have a moment. Thanks.--Zleitzen 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you define for me how you are using this term so that I can understand where you are coming from, or point me to a definition? --DavidShankBone 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Another for your watchlist re Striver: Talk:Payne Stewart --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add somebody else's RFA to the main page. It does not look like it has been accepted, in which case there is no need to !vote on it. Petros471 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The candidate did accept the nomination. I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. Please be more careful next time.--Jersey Devil 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, but still should have been added to main page by candidate, or nominator with permission, not by you. Petros471 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is there a specific rule against adding RFAs on the main page in which one is not the nominator or candidate? I just thought the nominator forgot to add it on.--Jersey Devil 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure where it is written (if it is at all), but it's usual practice. It is very common for RFA subpages to be created and worked upon before being formally accepted and transcluded. I suggest that it might have been better to just drop a note on the candidates talk page reminding them that they need to transclude it when they are ready. Petros471 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, if there is no specific written policy on this then I don't see why I should be placed on the defensive here.--Jersey Devil 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't like to see an unessasery pile-on. I realise I didn't read the nomination correctly, and it did look suspicious with someone else adding it. I've found this "Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, any editor (including the nominator or the nominee) can link it to the RfA page. This is done by following the "edit this page" link in the appropriate section below and adding the template provided at the bottom of this page (with the nominee's name substituted for USERNAME) to the RfA page. Ideally, the nominee should do this when they are satisfied with their answers to the questions." in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which (in my opinion) could do with a re-wording, I'll suggest it on the talk page. Sorry for 'placing you on the defensive'. Petros471 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Let's just forget about it.--Jersey Devil 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil, I, the nominator, am not happy with your hasty addition of the RfA to the main page. You could have waited. I may had wanted to discuss the nomination with Striver. Your addition was improper. Striver or I, could do it ourselves. We both know how to do it, don't we? My netural view of you has changed. --Aminz 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- See my above conversation with Petros. There was no policy broken, once Striver accepted the nomination it was perfectly fine to post it on the main page. The outcome would have been exactly the same with a hoard of people voting in opposition to Striver either way. So do not put me on the defensive, if anything it was highly irresponsible to take up the time of users whom review RFAs with a user who obviously would never have come close to achiving consensus. Thank you and good day.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jersey Devil, I think you get my point. Yes, the outcome would have been the same but that's not my point. Again, I wasn't trying to prove that you have broken some policy. My comment was that what you did was quite meaningful to me. You also have a good day. --Aminz 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Wikipedia:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
Jersey Devil... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Jersey Devil, thank you very much for your supporting comment, and your faith in me and my knowledge of policy. It was wonderful to see such a great editor support my humble request. Yours, Thε Halo Θ 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
I was overseas when that article was "deleted" but, had I been around, I would have voted Keep. They are about as important as the Fuck Truck up at Harvard, and having had the Fat Darrell named the best sandwich in America by a magazine with several million in circulation sorta establishes enough notability not to mention they're the subject of websites, news and magazine articles, etc. Even people who don't go to Rutgers seek out the grease trucks. I do not believe this article should be merged with the Rutgers article because even though they are a cultural aspect of the university, the Rutgers article really has no place for it. If you give me a few days, I'll do some work on the Grease Trucks article, and possibly you might reconsider that they aren't notable, etc. —ExplorerCDT 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What articles are you putting the Peru Poject template on? Are you going to add it to all 392 articles in Category:Peru geography stubs? --Descendall 00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is there any method to the madness, or are you typing them in as you think of them? I ask because I might be able to help if you had a list to work from or something. --Descendall 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, just to give you the obligitory AAAAA comment: How dare you call the MRTA a "pressure group?" They are TERRRORISTS and if you call them anything else you are a TERRORIST!!11!!111!!11!!1 --Descendall 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that I absolutely despise Sendero, but he still accuses me of being part of a "Sendero cell," however. On an off note, I'm doing these congress members, and I had no idea that Martha Hildebrandt is still in congress. Didn't that woman get totally discredited during the vladivideos scandal or something? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. --Descendall 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, I screwed up on Antonio Leon and you fixed it before I could. Thanks. --Descendall 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, when you get to the members of congress, I suggest that you start at the bottom of the list. I started at the top of it, and we can meet Transcontinental railroad style. --Descendall 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, when you get to the members of congress, I suggest that you start at the bottom of the list. I started at the top of it, and we can meet Transcontinental railroad style. --Descendall 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, I screwed up on Antonio Leon and you fixed it before I could. Thanks. --Descendall 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that I absolutely despise Sendero, but he still accuses me of being part of a "Sendero cell," however. On an off note, I'm doing these congress members, and I had no idea that Martha Hildebrandt is still in congress. Didn't that woman get totally discredited during the vladivideos scandal or something? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. --Descendall 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, just to give you the obligitory AAAAA comment: How dare you call the MRTA a "pressure group?" They are TERRRORISTS and if you call them anything else you are a TERRORIST!!11!!111!!11!!1 --Descendall 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
After following about 20 inter-wiki links, I saw that bear. I'm still snickering about it. I probably will be for another 30 minutes. It actually gets significantly worse, check this out. --Descendall 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Apparantly it's the logo of some software company. From what I can gather, whoever drew the images of all the sex positions added in some sort of little joke, such as the image on the laptop, books of his/her favorite author, etc. Some
idiotswikipedians have decided that these little easter eggs add so much "style" to the pictures that they should not be deleted. Go figure. --Descendall 05:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You're one of about a dozen wikipedians who have edited Unity08 (which puts you in pretty rarified company :-)) and it occured to me that you might be interested in something in that vein. I don't want to clutter up your talk page but I wanted to let you know about my user page being used to talk about the intersection of wikis and the Unity Movement. Sorry to be a bother, but "a dozen out of hundreds of millions" seemed like a small enough group to think there might be some common interests :-)
- JenniferForUnity 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Your revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&diff=78715707&oldid=78714387 stated that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The context of the remark is required. I do not mind you editing the wording to make more sense, or correct any bias I may have shown (which I beileve I did not), but removing it is uncalled for. Please respond.
Thanks.
- You have made additional edits without response. Please clarify your actions. Thank you.
Hi, I noticed you cleared out all links to Marcano Guevara. I know nothing about him, but came across his article and cleaned it up, and linked it to relevant places. Since he's a critic of baseball, I'm wondering why you are deleting him from See also, since deleting links to critical article seems to be POV. Sandy 23:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think I can AfD the article, as he does seem to achieve notability, and if the NACLA published him, I don't really see why he can't be a See also there. He's also a criticism of MLB. I'm looking for someplace he belongs so the article won't be linkless. I'm a baseball fan, but it seems that deleting him from everywhere is POV. Sandy 00:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 |
The Barnstar of National Merit | |
| I've awarded you the Barnstar of National Merit for your work on Peru-related articles. I've already placed the award on your user page. Take a bow; you deserve it. Descendall 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
On the CFR, it considers itself a "non-partisan organization" and people from both parties belong to it. I too wouldn't say that it has a stated political position, it really works as more of a forum if anything. You may want to try reading Foreign Affairs (a political journal published by the CFR) or seeing their website to see other works by the organization. You might also want to avoid using talk pages of articles to talk about these things, we have a pretty well-established policy that talk pages should be used only to talk about improvements to the article of which they belong. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your analysis. I think the comment on the Talk page was appropriate as this is information that should be added to the article. In fact, I hope you reword what you wrote to me and incorporate it into the article. Kent Wang 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the majority of changes you made to the George McGovern page - although I respect the vast majority of news sources you cite as generally credible or not credible, I question whether you are old enough to have lived through the time in question and how much depth of knowledge you have. I was actively involved in life and the McGovern campaign first-hand, as well seeing what happened in the Vietnam War/Anti-war efforts and how it tore the country apart. It was far more than Nixon's "policies', it was the entire culture of political abuse and corruption for which nearly every central associate of Nixon's ended up disgraced, with most of them serving prison terms. The McGovern campaign saw the attacks and dirty tricks on a daily basis in real time. That is documented reality, not a POV. Tvccs 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- What the heck? I came here to inform you that I changed the licence on an image you commented on, Image:Abimael Guzman 6.jpg, but I can't help but comment on this oddball rationale for a revert. To take this crazy logic to its conclusion, Tvccs should request that Classical antiquity be deleted. After all, none of the editors of that article were "old enough to have lived through the time in question." --Descendall 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The rationale for my revert speaks to the fact that the revisions made reflect a clear lack of direct knowledge of that time in history in the United States, whereas in this case there are plenty of living people that know far more, and that luxury exists. Far too many younger Americans have never learned just how corrupt the Nixon administration was and its effect on American society through a watered-down and/or sanitized history. The revisions made speak to the revisioner not having any direct knowledge, based on the fact the revisions made removed the phrase dirty tricks, when nearly anyone alive in the U.S. at that time, or that had thoroughly studied that period, would absolutely associate dirty tricks with the the Nixon campaign - they are the ones that largely wrote the book on it. I have repeatedly taken the position, as stated on my profile, and as is the case here, that editors should not edit articles of which they have no direct knowledge, to do so is irresponsible. Tvccs 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- 1) If you are going to talk to me, please do so in a civil tone. 2) Please do not think of yourself as more intelligent then me because of an age difference. 3) Please read WP:OWN with regard to who is allowed to contribute to which articles. 4) "Dirty tricks" is a POV word and "illegal tactics" gives off the exact same meaning without the implied point-of-view and that is why it was changed. I hope you can give me the same respect I am giving you right now, I could have easily responded in kind but I won't. Good day.--Jersey Devil 04:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The statements above were made civilly...it's incredibly annoying (and I could have said far more) to have people editing articles on which they have no direct knowledge - the Wikipedia article on dirty tricks specifically details the Watergate/Nixon era of said, and my age comments were directed at the fact that nearly any American alive in that period would associcate dirty tricks and Nixon. It was a mistake to make the revisions you did as the original phrasing was far more historically accurate phrase, as is supported by the article on dirty tricks and dozens of historical accounts of that period. You are certainly free to contribute to articles, and its obvious in reviewing your contributions (as I did before I left my original comments) you have made many substantial contributions. More power to you, but don't sanitize historical fact, as you did in this case - dirty tricks is NOT a POV, and in that case you are completely wrong. And as an FYI, I write for a major newspaper group you likely read. Thank you. Tvccs 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The following entry is from the Wikipedia article dirty tricks.
Watergate era dirty tricks
For a full history see: Watergate
The Nixon Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), a private non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, "dirty tricks' performed against opponents by Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Nixon's use of the FBI to investigate, slander and abuse opponents goes beyond simple pranks or dirty tricks into the realm of government initiated crime.
As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.
Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of a candidate, individual or organization so as to render them ineffective.
- For you to claim dirty tricks is a POV, then you should suggest the entire article should be removed, and any Wikipedia editor can do so. However, there isn't one chance in a hundred it would be, as dirty tricks is NOT a POV, as I stated earlier. Tvccs 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also reference the statement you included in your revisions rationale that Nixon was not president "in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when in fact he was president in that period. Tvccs 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I had immediately self-reverted that saying that I "misread the statement" which I had. Please don't twist my words.--Jersey Devil 04:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- When I looked at the revision history, it appeared that change was still present, if I misread that, my apologies as to your "misread". Let me offer the following as well...there is a so-called "sourced" quote in that article about McGovern and 20 million people leaving the Democratic party. The source for the quote isn't original, however, I traced the source back to a columnist for the National Review, who I found an e-mail address for, and who I sent an e-mail asking for the source of said quote - he responded it had been said by McGovern in a 1993 PBS program he helped produce - no transcript or tape of said program is available, and I could remove the quote if I wanted to be a jerk, but the reply of the original source is sufficient for me - I actually did the legwork and the research, as I would as a reporter or producer. Tvccs 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nice recent adds on the McGovern page...very useful Tvccs 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would add, as a minor suggestion - that you watch for goofy looking external links when adding images - I have run into this issue on other pages. In this case, I made a minor edit to fix the appearance of the link. I may need to take Wikipedia footnoting lessons from you, however. Tvccs 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nice recent adds on the McGovern page...very useful Tvccs 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jersey, could I ask you to keep an eye on what is going on in Healthcare in Cuba. In a nutshell, a group of editors (including myself) are creating an article using extensive international sources and detailed academic studies, Ultramarine insists this is all "pro-Castro" material and must be countered by great slabs of text, duplicated material, poorly sourced and worded material etc etc. The result is neither helpful, readable nor encyclopedic. The methods and talk page behaviour I deem to be deliberately disruptive, and I would tend to view this users activities as a particuarily pernicious. Perhaps the most overt and sustained POV war against clearly non-disputable material I have ever observed. The non-cooperation is such that this user is even disputing the referencing format of the page - refusing to abide by even this basic courtesy! --Zleitzen 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:El Pais March 12 2004 Cover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Thuresson 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it's Wesborland (talk · contribs), from Project Uruguay, I already reserved the spot for the Uruguay Portal, however, due to the fact that this project is pretty recent, it has a grand total of 6 members, and some of them are barely involved with any Uruguay-related pages. So, you offered your help, and I might need it, since I have no idea how to create a portal. Wesborland 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to inform a few of the more strongly entrenched opposers in your last Rfa and have them give you a review as well.--MONGO 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
| Hi Jersey, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
Noticed the project doesn't have a userbox. I wonder what you think of the following: {{User WP Peru}}. Badbilltucker 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
| Thanks! | |
|---|---|
| Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
| Georgewilliamherbert 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
| A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Well, you know Rutgers. It's all downhill from here. Give 'em another 150 years, they'll come around. I actually assumed that's why you came back to the Peru project -- Rutgers lost. --Descendall 06:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've just moved a discussion from my talk page to the WikiProject Peru talkpage. You might wanna check it out. --Victor12 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!
There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.
How can you help?
- You can join a Task Force.
- You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
- You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
- You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
- You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
- You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
- You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
- You can help reference articles.
- Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
- You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.
A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.
If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.
If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.
Thanks for fixing it. Are you interested? Kingjeff 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You just reverted the changes I made to the Democratic Party (United States) page, saying that it was clearer the old way. That may be true but it simply isn't accurate. Seems like accuracy should generally trump clarity. Middlenamefrank 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Um....49 + 49 = 98, + 2 = 100. That's exactly the point, look it up....there will be 49 dems and 49 reps. Nobody's opinion, just fact. The fact that NEITHER party has an actual majority needs to be mentioned, ideally in some way that's both accurate and clear. Middlenamefrank 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah....I really wasn't thinking at the time. Believe me, I do know the composure of the Senate, it was just dumb mistake.--Jersey Devil 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw your reversion, thanks for letting me know. I'm not at all opposed to clarifying the wording but I do feel it's a fairly important (if subtle) distinction to make. I'm hearing a lot of people talking about the 'Democratic majority in the Senate' and I think we need to be careful to be accurate here. Do you know if the committee chairs come down to a vote or how exactly does that work? Since there technically is no actual 'majority party' I'm not entirely certain the Dems have the committee chairs locked up. Middlenamefrank 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for staying in touch! It surprises me how rarely common decency prevails. I guess I've been seeing the 'caucus' process as an informal king of thing, but I want to KNOW how the procedure works. What really governs the committee chairs? I'm seeing 'my vote' and 'my party' as relatively independent processes, and as a voter I don't like that. I really do like to believe that my vote counts. I looked up 'caucus' and it didn't tell me much. Do you have any relevant info? Middlenamefrank 05:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I took out your comment, I hope you don't mind. I thought it arguably crossed the line into WP:NPA, and more to the point, isn't likely to bring this editor (who I think we both admire) back into the fold. Can I beg you not to make a political point out of MONGO's departure? Thanks in advance, --Guinnog 08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not entirely clear what you meant by your comment on my talk page. Which part stretches out? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite… it's a temporary area. =) Yeah, I'd previously been using that section of my user page to temporarily store raw Wiki-code that I had been working on. All of that is enclosed in <pre> tags. The thing is, I haven't worked on that particular set of articles for a few months now, so I suppose that code is unneeded. I'll get rid of it anyway. Thanks! —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem; the content of the debate was reliant upon the character of Tailkinker. His assumption that he could circumvent the attempt to find a better place for the efforts of the Haley Starshine's translation page... and go right to putting it up for deletion candidacy, was revealing in what kind of editor Tailkinker is. Process is important; he saw a page he didn't like, and went right for the most drastic solution.
That kind of action is less than scrupulous.--ttogreh 14:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Especially in these issues, that border is very thin. What he wrote was the equivalent of writing that Martin Luther King was a gay rapist murderer. Is that POV or vandalism? I call it vandalism. According to your lines, it would be POV. --Chussid 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
I do not understand the reason for your senseless labeling of my correction of Wikipedia's article on the one known as John Whorezine as 'vandalism'. Tell me, what is vandalism? Surely it is not correction of misrepresented and purposely altered articles designed to portray the times in a fallacious manner? Neither, then, by similar effect, should the replacement of pictures that inaccurately display a person in the same way be labeled 'vandalism'. Is not the accuracy and volume content within articles more significant than its liberal-minded and precarious foothold on the fence dividing the peoples of the world? It is time for us to uphold mankind's common right to the discovery of truth, and no longer proliferate content so diluted by the various wishes and whims of any global peoples or denominations. I pray that deluded Democrats such as yourself and your peers might see past your own ignorance and seek out a truth unaffected by political correctness. --inventionno14 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jersey, thanks for your note. As we all know, frustrations can set in. My negative opinions of the project have waned somewhat and I hope to continue editing in some capacity in the future. Cheers!--Zleitzen 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen your contributions to Peruvian-related articles and thought you might be interested in seeing Portal:Peru and Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru. Anyway, bye and happy editting.--Jersey Devil 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Devil. Thank you for the info. I've just added my name to the list of contributors to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru. --Tito4000 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you down in New Brunswick? Donr forget to join in the Joyce Kilmer GA to FA debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the Barnstar of National Recognition for my work on Somalia! I have moved it over to my User:Petercorless/Community Recognition page. --Petercorless 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've added three sources to this article. I believe this should take care of the sourcing and notability concerns, and you may want to revisit your AfD comments. Best regards, Dragonfiend 06:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are you to manage my edits?--Marco524
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comment accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the Impartiality Tag? It is more than clear that the article only focus on presenting an apologist Pro-"Sendero", Pro-"Human Rights Activist" biased portray of Alberto Fujimori's decade in power. Are you also going to compare the terrorist as "Robin Hoods and Joan of Arc of the XXI Century just like the Interamerican Court of Human Rights did? Let's avoid this. One thing is the rightful defense of Human Rights, but defending them only when they suit a political POV is plain wrong. There is a whole controversy in Peru right now regarding those topics.
The tag should be there once again, since it warns the reader that not all the information there is reliable or impartial. We have contributions ranging from pro-communist WebPages to self-proclaimed opinions from "Human Right Activists" using Wikipedia for commercial purposes. Leaving the article as it is with no warning whatsoever is plainly wrong, and you can see in the talk page that any opinion that does not meet the standard of 2 "owners" of the article is simply dismissed with political speeches that don't help the reader at all.
I'll be waiting for an answer. I'm trying to be more active in Wikipedia now that this semester I'm not that busy with College chores. Thanks. Messhermit 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Started a straw poll to discuss/decide whether to rename Rutgers University to the official name, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Come discuss, vote, etc., at: Talk:Rutgers_University#Straw_Poll:_Which_name_to_be_used —ExplorerCDT 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting vandalism by a particular user who was causing troule with other editors. Does the 3RR count? I reported the other user, but it was still vandalism. --DavidShankBone 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is Atomaton and the IP address 68.147.218.231 the same person? --DavidShankBone 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
