User talk:Calair

; Archives
	Up to July 2006; ; ;

BLP[edit]

Thanks. Good idea. I don't necessarily have a concern about bias per se - merely putting the template there for the use of less experienced editors. I think both Pell and Kirby's articles are ok. Perhaps we could have a section on the main tenets of Kirby's judicial philosophy, and the tenets of Pell's conservatism. Perhaps also the response from Milne to Pell's comments, or a linking of Pell's comments to those made by perhaps the Sydney Institute or some other think tank the Cardinal has spoken at. Overall, you're doing a great job! Jpeob 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of Nonmonogamy?[edit]

Looks like I've cause problems by suggesting a rename of the Poly relationships article. Sorry about that. I've been thinking, though, what about Responsible nonmonogamy or Forms of responsible nonmonogamy as a title? The etymology is probably uncertain, but there are at least a few verifiable sources that use the term:

We might be able to dig up even better references as time goes on. I think an article dealing with forms of responsible nonmonogamy could omit infidelity (as irresponsible) and protect the article from being merged with relationships in general (i.e., there's a verifiable concept called responsible nonmonogamy). What do you think? Kelly 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work![edit]

Wikignoming award
For distinguished Wikignoming I, Ta bu shi da yu, award you the WikiGnome award. Being a pedant is OK in my book!

Anno-Dracula series[edit]

I see you added the name Geneviève Dieudonné to this article. Are you sure this is the name of the heroine in these novels? I know it is the name of his vampire character in the Warhammer Fantasy novels, Drachenfels, Genevieve Undead and the rest of that series, but is it really the same name in this totally unconnected series? Ben W Bell talk 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I haven't read them personally. I just wasn't sure about it is all the reason I asked. Keep up the good work. Ben W Bell talk 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Apologies[edit]

I reverted your addition to the Christopher Lee page in error. When I went to IMDb I only looked for films with 1969 as their release year and, thus, missed the fact that your citation was just a few places away from what I was looking at. I apologize for not being more thorough, and I am also glad that you went back and found the right source to cite on your edit summary line. Again many apologies.MarnetteD | Talk 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPFOR[edit]

Leave the "enemy forces" out, please. The article is about OPPOSING FORCES (or OPFOR). I have served as an OPFOR/OC evaluator for several years, and also on OPFOR teams for several years. There is no reference to OPFOR as "Enemy Forces". The term OPFOR is US-centric and, thus, the article is allowed to have US focus (as other articles, such as executive car can have a Euro-centric focus). Also, the MILES system is used in many countries, thus, does not need a "US" designation. I added more info for "US Army" installations and such, but again - leave out the "enemy forces" designation. Trust me, I am speaking from many years of direct experience that this term has no meaning or usage here. Thank you. Rarelibra 14:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutality of articles[edit]

I have now added my reasons to the talk pages of the two articles that i added the NPOV tags too. Thanks for the heads up i will explain all tags that I add in the future.--Lucy-marie 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Can you please do a good article nomination review for the Amanda Dowler page.--Lucy-marie 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARCBS[edit]

Feel free to re-add it - I think that might have been inadvertently removed when I was cleaning up the page. Rebecca 01:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of anon[edit]

I am almost sure it is the same person.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Heffernan and NPOV[edit]

Hi there, I sympathise with your views on NPOV. Nonetheless, NPOV does not exclude partisan opinion - it simply provides that all significant points ov views should be represented. I've changed the phrasing of the sentence, and I believe the present form is fully backed up by the links cited.

Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, I added the statement not as to indicate that he is an unethical politician, but that he is widely seen to be one. As can be glimpsed from the sources cited, he is often the first example people cite when they talk about unethical politicians, which I think is quite notable by itself. --Sumple (Talk) 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions?[edit]

I have a few questions for you if you could pplease post the answeres on my talk page thay would be most apreciated.

Are you an admin?
How do you set up wiki projects on certian topics?
What is the copywright status of images of adbucted people?
How do you request help on building and new page?

Sorry if this all seams to be a bit random but i am geting lost in the wilderness here and have had dealings of a posative nature in the past with you, so i think you could be able to help me. Sorry if this is in any way an inconveniance to you. Your help is very much apreciated.--Lucy-marie 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply it has ben most helpful. Can i ask another request of you could you help me with the Hannah Williams? To start of with as I am tryin to start a project on murder victims starting first off with english murder victims. Mainly the teenage girls to start off with as i connect the most with them as i am an English teenage girl myself. So any help on any of these pages would be most helpful. I am also looking to start two more pages one on Leanne Tiernan and the other on Danielle Jones. Thank you very much again for your reply and any help you can offer would be very gratefully recieved.--Lucy-marie 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap the page on Danileele Jones as a page has allready been created for her.--Lucy-marie 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on these pages i have found a few more refrences for Hannah Williams page but am unsre how to incorporate them in to the article as it stands.
http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=Hannah%20Williams http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=Hannah%20Williams http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=Hannah%20Williams http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=Hannah%20Williams --Lucy-marie 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Could you offer up a non-biased, neutral opinion to a few surveys for naming convention changes? The pages are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Tyrol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bozen-Bolzano. Thanks! Rarelibra 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of nonmonogamy[edit]

Did you actually mean to put the link to polyemmory back in? [1] Mdwh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I just wanted to thank you for the welcome and the tips last week! Life took over, unfortunately, or I would have responded sooner... Wikipedia is exciting! I'm still planning to edit the Sackville-West article and hope to get to it sometime this weekend... (I hope I've posted this message correctly.) Anyway, thanks again!--Always already 07:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Rhys[edit]

I'm a different Rhys (class of '91 from Adelaide) although you sound a lot like someone I knew at school. Rhys 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance[edit]

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Warhammer[edit]

You have shortend the artikel of Warhammer. Where would you write about the Warhammer universe, witch is apropriat vor both the Warhammer Fantasy Universum and the Warhammer 40K Universum, like that it was once one and that at a later time it was decided to cut the links? Also the Warhammer Universe is not just represented by Warhammer Fantasy Battles, which is only one game of Games Workshop, that is found in the Warhammer Fantasy Universum. I think a site of the Warhammer Universum is needed. I only have made an opening with the side, but I planned to develope the side to more, and moving content from the two Warhammer sites to this side, because there are a lot of things that doesn't belong there, because the two Warhammer sites are only the sites to two games, as there decribed.

Also I wanted to make clear with that Warhammer is a copyright of Games Workshop. The medieval weapon is writen war hammer. Only for misunderstandings, I have left the link to the weapon. What do you think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Projekt2501 (de) (talk • contribs).

Requested moves[edit]

I re-opened the discussion on the move of Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol. If you want to say your opinion, you're welcome. --Checco 07:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot bug[edit]

Hi - thanks for reporting the error - it will be looked into at the weekend. Seeing that, I get the feeling that people are reverting vandalism after the finds the vandalism, but before it reverts properly. I'm not too sure, but will put a possible fix into the code soon. Mart inp23 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ossie Davis[edit]

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the discussion on the Ossie Davis Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2004 Australian Greens candidates[edit]

The 2004 Australian Greens candidates has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Australian Greens candidates. Thank you. Peter Campbell 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aust Barnstar[edit]

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xxxenophile02.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xxxenophile02.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemony Snicket task force[edit]

Hello, Calair, and thank you for your contribution with articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the task force page for more information. Thanks! — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Non-monogamy[edit]

Calair, I proposed deletion of an entry you created called Non-monogamy. This term is not even a neologism. The idea that all non-monogamous marital practices ought to be categorized together under one umbrella terms is original research. If you object remove the tag, but I will take it to AfD at that point unless you show the notability of this concept. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ship Captain's Log[edit]

I'm thankful for people like you on Wikipedia. However, *oink*, even though I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, your last update reads like the last log entry found on the captain's log of a ghost ship... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.8.107 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for the kind words! I'm not dead or anything, but for privacy reasons I've pretty much retired this account - I wanted to edit articles that relate to my work, without having that linked to my edits on sexuality etc, so I created a separate account for that purpose and it now takes up most of my Wiki time. --Calair (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Devilbunnies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devilbunnies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devilbunnies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Red Menace (New Mexico Lobos) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Menace (New Mexico Lobos) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Menace (New Mexico Lobos) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia trainers requested in New South Wales[edit]

Wikimedia Australia is looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out at training sessions across New South Wales, in particular in Newcastle, Wollongong, Port Macquarie and in Parkes. If you're interested, the details are at the following link:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2013-July/003677.html

We'd love to see you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Nomination of Primary and secondary (polyamory) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Primary and secondary (polyamory) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary and secondary (polyamory) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Organic unit for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organic unit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]