User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 4

• Archive 1 - moved 12 July 2008
• Archive 2 - moved 26 October 2008
• Archive 3 - moved 22 January 2009

Yuri George Jan Pool

Although this artist may seem insignificant to someone living outside of the city this artist operates in, it is no reason for deletion of this article. The article is backed up by highly reliable and verifiable sources that proves the notability of this artist, which seems to be the prime reason you have given why this article should be deleted. I therefore assume this deletion notice may have been misunderstanding on your part and should therefore be removed. Rickgalliard (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The McCartney Years (band)

Although this band may seem insignificant to someone living outside of the city this band operates in, it is no reason for deletion of this article. Research on google will easily reveal the impact this production has in the local area, not to mention their popularity. Highly reliable and verifiable sources have been given to back this up. I assume this deletion notice may therefore have been misunderstanding on your part. Rickgalliard (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

March 14

Please stop deleting the holiday on March 14th Calendarwatcher. Just because you are not familiar with a topic does not make it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismaticvision (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealings with XSG - Santa Cruz County article

I noticed that last year, you seem to have had some interaction with XSG, regarding possible violations of Three Revert Rule. Were you able to reach a common ground with this user? Currently, I am also involved in a new dispute regarding inclusions to the Santa Cruz County article, where he seems to be taking the same WP:OWN approach to convey his preferences. I'd like to work with this user toward the common good of the article, as well as the greater scope of ALL CA county articles. Any suggestions? Edit Centric (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! Well, I'm not sure you want to take the "Californian holiday", things in this state seem to be getting more expensive as the weeks go by, what with the current economic woes, the budget crisis, etceteras. But if you do, I highly recommend the Bay Area, nice views, clean air (on the bay, that is!) and lots to do. :-D

As for the article and XSG, I'll try to work with him toward a common goal. Thanks for getting back to me so promptly, and best wiki wishes! Edit Centric (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

January 14

You haven't responded to the thread on my talk page, and you are still edit warring at that article. I have to figure this is a misunderstanding that has gotten way out of hand, so I'm trying to be patient. Here's where I'm coming from:

• The edits the user has been making are not vandalism. You have (very belatedly) conceded as much.
• The user in question has made some rude remarks, but not before you started reverting him out of hand. When biting newbies, one can't be too upset when they respond with sarcasm and incivility. They don't know any better.
• The various IPs have been blocked in the past - but those blocks were incorrect. They continue to be issued now, also incorrectly. Sometimes admins don't look at the whole situation and are especially quick to block anons, and I've certainly been guilty of that myself. But one inappropriate block does not forever damn the user's future contributions.
• The addition is verifiable with reliable sources and links to the related article. You don't get to unilaterally decide the inclusion criteria for these articles. If you don't like it, you need to seek dispute resolution. Look at it from his point of view: he tried to add something that is clearly notable, having received wide coverage in every major news source in the world, and has received nothing but snide remarks and blocks for his efforts.
• This is a content dispute, and it has become a slow edit war. I'm not willing to let the article be vandalized, but I'm not willing to let you bully someone into submission just because he doesn't have an account.
• The compromise version (which was reached after a long discussion with Mufka) was an attempt to stop the edit war after he filed a report at AIV. If you are willing to leave the compromise version in for now, while you seek dispute resolution, I am willing to semi-protect the article to help end the problems with the IPs.
• If you revert again without seeking dispute resolution, I will block you. You're a good editor, and I really don't want your first block to come from me over something so trivial.

All I'm asking is that you consider treating this user with a shred of respect, stop reverting his contribution, and try to get a fresh start by talking instead of warning. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, after a quick conversation (as I said, a little respect goes a long way) the IP user told me he's satisfied that he has received a fair shake. So I went ahead and indefinitely s-protected the article on your version, and hopefully that will stop the edit warring there. I'm also willing to help with future sock blocks and other page protection as needed; just drop me a line. I do hope you'll keep this in mind in the future, though, and not be so quick to dismiss edits as vandalism just because they don't meet the standards of one of our wikiprojects. A few lines of firm but polite discussion might avoid another situation like this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said I would...

I don't know if you know yet (maybe?) but I was convicted of sock puppetry and found guilty after I admitted it about this whole January 14/15/17 edit war. I'm actually here to both thank-you and apologize for you putting up with this. I was unblocked after a lengthy discussion and I will no longer be vandalizing any pages.. but contributing good edits to the Wikipedia and I invite you to monitor my contributions.

Sorry and Thankyou! --SamB135 (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW ELSE TO SEND YOU A MESSAGE, SO HERE GOES:

Hi - I’m User:CCFSDCA (Christopher Corbett-Fiacco) and I understand the concerns expressed by many of you regarding the articles I’ve posted at Wikipedia the past week or so. I am in fact the author of The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World, as stated (an as-yet unpublished book which is based upon the self-published The Whole World Calendar 2008 [and 2009; email me at wholeworldcalendar@gmail.com and I’ll be glad to send you a sample page and info on ordering, if interested]). I have sent Wikipedia its permissions grant for using copyrighted material as requested and assure you that I am not self-promoting. My mistake is in not yet spending the time to figure out exactly how to cite the book as the reference for the article, which I’ll do as soon as I have the time. My intent in adding the articles is that they are actual national/religious/cultural holidays and festivals, are therefore ‘newsworthy’ if not particularly important, and, having spent two years researching the topic, I can assure you that it is quite difficult at times to find such information -- try to find out what Earthquake Victims Memorial Day is in Armenia and you’ll see what I mean. It is my intent to self-publish the book within 6 months if I cannot find a publisher. Meanwhile, feel free to delete my articles as desired. I’ll revisit the subject at a later date and repost them only after I’ve ascertained that I am, in fact, doing it right. Meanwhile, I’m not copying from somebody else -- those articles are my own -- that’s the way I write. Thanks much. CCFSDCA (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Chris Corbett-Fiacco

Note

I suggest you look at the history of Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush more carefully before jumping to conclusions.--Otterathome (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding it now, I didn't before as it may be seen as being very confrontational, but users don't see the COI so I have no choice.--Otterathome (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disagreement over removal of other's comments at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush

A discussion in which you might be interested as you are mentioned. Dlohcierekim 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

richard cohen

Stop deleting info about Richard Cohen. You meke vandalism all the time. All informations about his anti-polonism was published with sources like Washington Post. Maybe you think, that article in Wasington Post is not reliable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.250.10 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the reversion of my edit without discussion? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where has it been discussed? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is the reverting of my edit ok but I am not allowed to re-revert to my version? I think reverting my edit speedily simply because it was my edit was wrong and deserves a ban. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of your edits are not constructive. I don't know about this one, in particular, but that's the way to bet, in general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This just proves my point that you have a bias against me. This makes all your actions related to me subject to review. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because more than one person does wrong does not make it any less wrong. Your reversion of my edits without discussion is subject to a ban as it is disruptive and unconstructive. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to the debate about valid links on websites

Regardless as to whether we agree or disagree on the validity of a link in reference to a subject, you have every right to pursue enforcement of your opinion on whether or not the links should stand. However, to request that I "Please cease in attempting to change people's mind about this fundamental subject" is a bit over the top, particularly because we are debating multiple issues here. We all have minds of our own, and the ability to reason, think, and debate constructively and rationally. So let us both rejoice that we have a forum in which to levy both of our points and let the concensus decide whose points should no longer be brought for dissent.Edenrage (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)I also might add, if a website has pertinent information to a topic, yet still acts as a hub for commercial advertisements of products or services is the end all criteria for judging whether a site is spam or a commercial link, then 1/2 the sites contained within wikipedia for references and external links should be removed. Even on the homeowners association page, the reference article Educating Homeowners, Orange County Register, Nov. 12, 2006 that is included under the references section, is a for profit newspaper, with dozens of links to various commerical enterprise, everything from car dealerships to website builders to banks. I don't make the argument that it should not be in there, because the information in the article may prove valuable, although it is one man's opinion based on his assessment of factual information (as most newspaper articles are). THis whole concept of what is relevant information, and how much creedence the media should get simply becuase they have the money to get better exposure, is what stands at the very foundation of commercialism vs. true information and where the lines should be drawn. Like in many cases, there are arguments to be made on both sides....but if the websites or articles contain good information that is not centered on forcing someone to buy a product...why not let the reader decide on whether or not the link for a low a.p.r rate on a new toyota is compelling enough to click on. Obviously many editors have already concurred with this decision.

A newspaper article whether it be from Time magazine or the kalamazoo daily times still contains 2 things, 1. Information on the topic which is generally a mixture of fact and opinion 2. most importantly, a link home, along with other advertisement links, because at the end of the day, an article in the new york times regardless of topics, is bait for someone to buy the new york times.

If you are so quick to label something "self serving" spam, then remove all articles on wikipedia that are published by commercial entities whose goal is to lure readers into buying with relevant content.

Jade Goody

Please stop removing her from the 2009 death list, it says to be on that list they need nine none english wikipedia articles, Jade Goosdy has 10 so she meets the criteria to be on that list hence she is notable. So really your own small opinion of whether she is notable or not should not stand in the way of this, the way you say "nn notable" death actually comes across as offensive to me and I will post all the non english versions of the article here for you to see. Argentium (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

please see:

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentium (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean Kennedy (Author) to stay in Wikipedia

I respectfully request you reconsider your decision for "endorsing deletion". I believe there have been many productive responses to concerns on the deletion review page as well as additional references and notability entries (#1/#2) added to the article. Thank you very much for your time. CelticWonder (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your articles?

I hope so. Thelobbyist (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

You make me waste my time telling you that you're quite uncivil and make WP:POINT with the edit warring. That's archived by my choice, so I decided to comment about my dismay. That is not my last comment. If you think it should be taken out, BaseBug's comment and my subsequent answers might be gone too. No thanks for your unhelpful meddling and attacking. Care to do your things.--Caspian blue 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your use of revert on good faith edits

You should not revert/undo good faith edits of other users as you did on Burnett Thompson. If you disagree with my decision you could discuss it on my talk page, nominated the article for AFD, or possibly have renominated for CSD or have taken it to deletion review. Generally reverting should only be done as a last resort, unless it's vandalism or other abusive edits. Thank you. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your absolute disregard for good faith or even common courtesy is saddening, and I do hope you find some joy in what you do. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Deletions You constitute as vandalism

I thought wikipedia was "the people's encyclopeadia"! As such am I (a person) and my wife (another person) not allowed to place our birthdates alongside those of other people? Furthermore, as our marraige is still a matter for history. Why was that also deleted?

Just because my life has not achieved any fame or notoriety, I do not consider myself any less noteworthy than other people on your site. So please allow me re-add the births and marraige again, in the furture. ditto to nja in previous comment "Your absolute disregard for good faith or even common courtesy is saddening, and I do hope you find some joy in what you do" davidwilson1960@gmail.com--David T Wilson 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Significance Yuri George Jan Pool

Artists who may be insignificant to someone in another country, may be significant in the country where the artist resides, or operates. It is a matter of opinion whether one thinks the artist is significant or not. We are not here to discuss opinions, we are here to provide the readers with verifiable facts. The facts are that this artist has received significant press coverage for work he has done within this large community backed up with enough verifiable and reliable sources, which are available for anyone's review. If being featured in one of Canada's largest newspapers and one of the US major TV stations cannot be constituted as being notable, what is?

Additionally, the article is clearly neutral and factual, and does not in any way promote the artist any more than other artists hosted on this on-line encyclopedia. It is not up to my or your opinion whether we think this artist is insignificant or not. The fact is that this artist has indeed made a significant impact on the music scene here, verified by countless sources.

If you would like to make suggestions on how to improve this article, I will be happy to receive and discuss your recommendations.

Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "There's no evidence that the artist you represent--or which you are--is significant even within his own city. You've certainly offered no real evidence of notability"

Sir, the fact is that there is evidence that the artist in question is significant, and certainly within this own city of operation. Please do not deny my claims that are simply true and supported by their facts. Please research the article and its contents, as well as the references and their notability of the claim, as is policy of Wikipedia.

Additionally, I do not represent the artist, I merely wrote an article in the interest of the general public, who have voted (the majority of roughly 350,000 inhabitants in this major Canadian city) him democratically as the favourite artist of 2009. I encourage you to support your claims why this is not significant. Please consider the international acclaim as well (Fox News), which has been referred to in the article. Please help me improve the article, rather than making personal opinions on whether you think the artist is significant or not. I am able to supply more references and add weight to support my article at your request.

Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article complies completely to the Notability guideline you have sent me. Yes, I make the claims, and yes, I back them up with undeniable evidence in accordance with the policies Wikipedia has set up to regulate these things, and yet you seem more interested in deleting the entire article more than anything else, without putting any weight on this claim (yes, you do have to give valid reasons backed up with evidence to support your claim, not just me. You would not last 5 minutes in a courtroom if you didn't). Only now you have taken little time to actually read some of the article. Claims that are made in the article with the facts are dismissed by yourself as insignificant. What is significant, and what is not? How many articles must be out there on one particular artist to call the artist significant? Surely, there must be some guideline or number to where you get your information from? Who decides who is significant and who's not? Isn't that democratically decided?

I agree with you that Wikipedia does exist as a way to record notability, which I have done, and supported with more than one reference, and yes, if that means that one of these claims are supported by articles covering a traffic-stopping event, then I think that's essential. Isn't this rather essential proving whether the artist is notable or not? I am not enhancing, nor creating notability, please specify? Where do you get these facts from? Once again, the article is neutral and factuous and does not promote the artist any more than any other artist on this on-line encyclopedia.

I am here to resolve this issue, but it seems to me that you are not. I have requested multiple times for assistance with improving this article (I did mention I have many more references at your request), but yet you are not interested, or at least ignote this entirely. If you are really committed into improving Wikipedia and its content, then I believe you should offer your knowledge on your subject to assist in this matter, just as much as I share my knowledge with you.

Look, I am not here to annoy anyone. I am here because I am passionate about the music industry, and have extensive knowledge of it, which I am willing to share. I have made it very clear that I am open to suggestions, and would therefore like to invite you to assist, rather than to destroy. Knowledge is power, so let's share it!

Best regards, 207.112.91.220 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read through the entire articles you have sent me, and have sorted out all the guidelines I could find. Please find below a breakdown of my findings with references. Thank you for your time and consideration:

• WP:BAND Article #12: "Has been the the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" Runtime 31:21 minutes, live broadcast on A-Channel on January 30, 2009.[1]

• WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage"" The sources address the subject directly in detail[2]

• WP:NOTABILITY ""Reliable"" The sources indicated have editorial integrity, cf. the reliable source guideline as set out by Wikipedia (third party published sources); major newspaper.

If you need yet more evidence, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that you are all too eager to get rid of the article, and do not wish to cooperate in any way at all possible. I wish you good luck with your deletion process, and all the best. Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again

I asked you in both edit summary and article discussion to discuss the matter, yet for some unfathomable reason, you seem unwilling to do so. I would ask you, yet again, to contribute to a discussion regarding the entry of '76. This seem like edit-warring, and I would prefer to work with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss: no link, no evidence, not the slightest suggestion of why your entry should be on that page means that it comes off. There are very minimal requirements for listing on date pages, and you haven't even tried to meet them--which means that the edit-warring would be on your part, especially, to correct your consistent misunderstanding, that those actively attempting to introduce material into Wikipedia are absolutely required, both as fundamental site policy and common sense, to provide evidence of their claims. Note that the very first sentence of that last link reads The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is something to discuss. As there are quite literally millions of dab terms that link peripherally to the term that supports them, you reasoning is on somewhat shaky ground. Take a closer look at WP:DAB; some of the examples they use, Joker and Mercury, lists at least 5 different terms that are not specifically linked to the words disambiguated. As the entry I added '76, refers to the year used as the setting for the comic book mini-series, and as '76 is an accepted, understandable shortened form of 1976 - the page in question - I am unsure of both your aggressive reply. If you think that a second opinion is necessary, I am fully prepared to await it. Until we have resolved this issue, I would ask that you not fight over its continued entry on the page - that's the edit-warring part I was referring to. If I am mistaken - and I have read your bit about the burden of proof, which I feel I have met, as the term is explained more in depth at the linked subject - then I look forward to learning something new. However, that I am replying here and in the page discussion should suggest that I don't feel I am. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, did you miss the part about how I wanted to discuss the matter either here or in the page discussion? If you don't wish to discuss this on your talk page (and maybe with a bit more politeness than you have so far presented), then we can continue the discussion solely on the 1976 page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You apparently missed the part about your lack of authority to issue orders to others regarding standard talk-page interactions, among other things: if you claim the right to use my user-talk page to reply, then you cannot deny me the same right. If others using your user-talk page for its intended purpose bothers you, you don't get be surprised when you bother others on theirs. And if you wish to actually discuss the issues raised rather than your self-serving and strangely recalcitrant interpretations of policy and guide-lines, please do so. Again, if others using your user-talk page for its intended purpose bothers you, this can be done solely at Talk:1976, though why you just didn't do so in the first place instead of unilaterally imposing your eccentricities on others is rather mysterious. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sport, its my user talk page; if I choose, after notifying you, to discuss the matter solely upon your usertalk or in page discussion, I am within my rights. Several other editors have the caveat across the top of their usertalk page explaining that if they write to you on their talk page, the expect to continue the discussion there. As well, if you prefer to not discuss the matter on your talk, and prefer to stick to page discussion, that's fine with me, and I noted this acceptance earlier. I came to your page because there seemed to be a personality conflict that I thought might be resolved away from the page. I didn't think it an eccentricity, I thought it a nice way to avoid unintended dramahz. Clearly, I was mistaken, and your reaction seems a clear indication of that.

Look, I think we got off on the wrong foot here, and frankly, I am unwilling to believe that you are actually the pompous jerk you are coming across as. Clearly,, you have taken umbrage where none actually occurred or was intended. Assume a little more good faith please. So, let's try this again, okay?

I have noted that a great many disambiguation pages that list terms that do not have articles in and of themselves. '75 was one such term. I am unsure as to whether you were arguing that '76 was not a shortened form for the year 1976 (it is). Additionally, the link to the writer who created the series, B. Clay Moore listed the comic book in the subject's biography. Granted, if you don't know the comic, then you could argue that it is inconsequential, but as some people are familiar with both the title and the author, they consider the title notable.

In all, the matter seems somewhat moot, as the article for the comic has since been created. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried to discuss this nicely. This is my last comment here and, as I promised, I have removed your comments on my usertalk. I will confine my comments to you to page discussion. Please do not reply to this message in my talk, as it isn't necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Significance Duane Storey

I remove the articles for deletion as notability is clearly indicated -- the person in the page was nominated for a Canadian country music award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.168.12 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Snow Hole

My first reaction was the same as yours. "It's a damn hole in the ground". However, the other participants showed that it's notable so I closed it "keep". Now if you'll excuse me I have to go find sources for the big puddle of water next to the bus stop I use everyday. There's potential for a featured article there :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sitaleki Timani

Hi Calenderwatcher, what makes you think Sitaleki Timani is a hoax? ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

February 19

May I ask about your reasoning for this revert? The nationality of Copernicus and Hevelius (and many others) is controversial, it should be dealt with only in the main articles. A calendar is not the proper place to make bold claims, all attempts to advertise national POV, like by this Warsaw-based anon, should be rejected [3]. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Matthead

In addition to what I wrote on AE, you may want to look at this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHECKUSER or WP:SPI may be of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, these 7x-range IPs came from the US, while I'm in Germany. If you expect that a checkuser might find something else, go ahead. Besides, CalendarWatcher, you should by now have learned enough about the Copernicus case. Now stop slandering me and revert your wholesale reverts of my edits, okay? -- Matthead  Discuß   16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, co-founder

This is the most recent discussion. There were a dozen before it over the years, and they're all listed. This discussion needs not take place on every article that lists Jimmy and mentions his role in Wikipedia. The project should be both verifiable and consistent with information, and this is no exception. Jimmy Wales as co-founder is the established consensus backed by many reliable sources dating back as early as Wikipedia's first press releases. لennavecia 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1966

You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Spook's Bestiary

Could I request a copy of the article which you deleted on 14:01, 10 September 2008. Thanks. Stormwatch70 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats great, thanks. Stormwatch70 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1977

Just wondering if you had some rationale behind removing the death of Elvis Presley from the Events of 1977 section of 1977. Is there a consensus that a famous death is not to be considered an event? John Lennon's murder is in the Events of 1980. Ted Bundy's is in "Events of 1989". Princess Diana's death is in 1997, and of course Michael Jackson's death is in the events for this year. Seems odd that a story that is as big or bigger than any of those, save for Jackson, is not included -especially considering the spectacle that his funeral turned out to be. --Yankees76 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario)

The WP:BLP, David Ferguson (impresario), has been tagged with a lot of templates by two editors who have a long history of negative edits on this article. Could you be kind enough to take a look at the text, citations, and templates and share your views? There is also a posting on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about these templates. I'm writing you because you've expressed interest in this article before and I think help is needed about a NPOV. Thank you --deb (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Dear CalendarWatcher

The relationship between this account and that of Arthur Rubin is being discussed here. Tony (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous account(s)?

Hi CalendarWatcher. During your first days of editing on WP it is clear you were familiar with concepts such as: notability, over-linking, and using monobook.js. You also displayed extraordinary speed and facility in both editing articles, and in taking other editors to task concerning their edits (reverts, warnings, etc.). Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia? Thanks for your help in this matter.  HWV258  06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher, I refer to your reply to HWV258's polite query, on his talk page, which I watchlist:

And why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition?

There are actually very good reasons that a serious, substantive response is required. As you are aware, I've raised the matter of the relationship between this account and that of Arthur Rubin on AR's talk page; as a result, you made what appears to be the first-ever direct exchange between this account and AR. However, it did not address the issue of why this account opened with a rash of expert edits that displayed expertise and great confidence in WP editing, technically, socially and culturally.

Please permit me to speak plainly. There are only two possible explanations. Either—

1. you made a "clean start under a new name" (which I think is behind HWV258's request that you demonstrate this by naming the previous account); or
2. this is an alternate account of a single user, which under current policy is normally declared either by mutual links or to ArbCom or one of its functionaries, unless such an account is being used under one of the categories set out in that same section.

Will you kindly advise which of these is the case and provide further details as HWV asked, since no other explanation seems likely. It is in everyone's interest that the matter be cleared up so that you and others can move on from it. This is the basis of the assumption of good faith I am making. Tony (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to your recent post on my talk page:

There was no attempt to "veil" anything. There is nothing mysterious about HWV258, if that is whom you're referring to. Are you counter-accusing us of being socks? (I'm unsure of your meaning.) We both attended the July Wikimania dinner in Sydney, so there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that we are not operated by the same user. I can assure you that we are very different individuals who have healthily different ideas about many aspects of WP; in some matters we have had to agree to differ.

There is compelling evidence that CalendarWatcher is someone's alt account; whether it is a sock puppet, of course, depends on the identity of the operater, since that is critical to the definition of sock puppetry. Many of CalendarWatcher's edits could well have breached tenets of WP:SOCKPUPPET, but may not have; we can't know until the operator identifies themselves—or if CalendarWatcher was started as part of the "clean start" provision in the policy, what the previous account was. Without this information, the suspicion is strengthened. Please note that it is considered the normal thing to link to the other account(s) operated by the same user.

If you'd like more evidence, it can be supplied. But first, will you kindly answer HWV258's query about the expertise and speed with which CalendarWatcher's life was launched into action, back on 22 September 2006.

I must say that it would be appreciated if you were less aggressive in your tone. I apologise if this is stressful, but it's best for everyone if the air is cleared; otherwise, the suspicion will be fostered. Can you provide the requested information, please? Tony (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)