This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Scotland talk
Howdy, archiving would be acceptable, as there's alot of repetition in those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comments
You express yourself clearly, very well said. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
hi, to make your case you should say to him that you ask him to revert his last edits that violated the 3rr and give him the chance to revert, then if he doesn't at least you made the offer to him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see two clear reverts...as I told someone else, 3 reverts and then a warning on the users talkpage and then if the user makes another one give him the opportunity to revert on his talk page and then if he doesn't you can report him and that is a strong case, these days I would not report unless all of those step were met, that way your reports will be strong and you won't be wasting your energy reporting, never mind, next time if you want to make a report follow these steps, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Take care not to make too much noise, discussion is the key, tomorrow is there waiting and the day after. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If you want assistance in opening an RfC, ask me or any other admin. It would be a good-faith gesture if you would withdraw your 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
clear issues
that section clearly is excessive and has many issues, it should not be there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yea, looks good..I like the ideas..carry on. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Come by and "put in your two cents" as the Yanks love to sayMalke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malke, presently, if you missed it, I am recovering from having my good name, or not good name... dragged through the muddy waters of ANI, please don't comment there as the report had lost its legs.
If the religion discussion stalls or appears to be going nowhere, after a degree of time, then take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for thanksgiving, i'm in the uk, but still, why not, best wishes to you to. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Externals
Aw, thanks, you too. This article is also a bit comparable, It clearly would be good to read the WP:EL article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Checklinks tool
Here is the checklinks tool for Rove, you can use it for checking the links on any article, just change the name in the box at the top, anything red is broken and needs looking at, perhaps repairing with the internet wayback machine, google it, its a tool for repairing links to past versions of the page that are sometimes archived on the web, and anything with connection issues it inneed of checking, blue is OK, ask me if you want to know anything. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Scrubbin is the last option, here is the Wayback machine add the web address to the box when you go there and see if there are any pages saved in the big internet memmory, if there are then replace the new link for the old one, if there aren't any saved versions then we look for a replacement citation, if all that fails then it would need to go and perhaps the content be replaced with something similar. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really want to do much there really, I had a bit of energy for the copy vio template on the religion section and a bit of energy for the external section as it also has a template and that small removal which I thought was wrong in the lede, thats about it, but I am around if you want to ask me anything and if I can point you in the right direction I will, yea? Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The Salk photos in the article were tagged but the problems are fixed. There is no clear reason why they would be deleted and I assume the "problem notice" tags on them now will eventually get removed. The best, easiest, and safest way to check copyright status and ownership is with a copyright search. If it's not listed as having been filed or renewed then it's safe to assume there is no copyright. I doubt that any newspaper would even be able to confirm whether they ever filed any notices since that would take them a lot of in-house or legal research through old (non-computerized) records. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
When I enlarged the photo I could see the names of the newspapers taped up in the guy's window. So before I left the question on your talk page, I emailed all of those papers including the New York Times and the New York Daily News. If they come back with anything interesting, any anecdotes about the times, I'll add it to the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the "General Fixes" part is done by WP:AWB but it is currently hamstrung because someone doesn't like that it gives references names. The other specific part is dating tags such as {{Citation missing}} - this puts the articles into dated categories, to help with cleanup. To find out more about robots see WP:BOT. RichFarmbrough, 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
It isn't as good as it should be. We have 203,000 such articles going back to at least January 2006, see table on right. And there are other categories almost as big. RichFarmbrough, 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
Excuse me, but I did not "simply revert". I moved the content to the appropriate main body article section. The lead section of an article should not contain content that is not already included in the article itself. Per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. I also corrected citation format style rather than the blank links with no appropriate identification, title, date, publication or author. Yeah, you're right, it does take a lot of work. It takes even more work to correct errors in citation addition, verify citations, some of which did not, in any way, support what you said it did and for which I had to find proper sourcing. Let me remind you this is designated a good article and thus, the style, citations and content that you added does not pass good article muster. The rest of the content you added to the lead isn't at all supported by a stark link to the Writer's Guild, which, when his name is searched, states simply "Sorry, this member has chosen not to publish any details." This content would not go in the lead unless it is already contained in the article. I note also that you were told here that the content should go in the personal life section, which is not where you put it. When you make an addition to an article and click save, it is no longer your addition. At the bottom, below the edit window, in tiny letters, it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I did not simply revert your addition, I moved it and cleaned it up. Please be so good as to return to the personal life section the cleaned up content regarding the marathon and remove the unverified content you added to the lead. Otherwise, in this case, I will simply revert it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude, don't get snarky. It's just wikipedia. . .relax. If the citations need clean up, mention that in the talk page and tell the user to get on it on that user's talk page. People learn from their mistakes. If an editor has to go back and clean up their own contribution they won't make that mistake again. Also, I did move the marathon thing to the personal section. I had not finished editing when you came along and reverted/moved. When I was putting in my edit, I noticed the lead could use some work, so I went looking for citations. So you can imagine, when I came back I wondered what had happened. I always use the talk page, I think it keeps things cool. Nice to meet you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't just delete your post, I archived my talk page for the month. What needed to be kept for some reason, was archived. You can learn about basic referencing at WP:REFB and about using citation templates, which is what most good or featured articles use, at WP:CT. I would encourage you to notice if articles are designated as good or featured articles so that you can be better aware of the absolute need to cite everything that is added, to format citations properly, and to just be aware of what is considered good. Featured articles have a gold star in the upper left-hand corner, and you can enable article ratings assessment at the top of each article by going to User preferences at the top of the page, then click on "Gadgets", and at the bottom of the page at User interface gadgets, check the box for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", save and check article pages. It should say "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top of Edward Norton then. Again, though, let me reiterate. There should be nothing in the lead of an article that isn't also in the main body of the article. The main article states and cites that Norton worked on Frida and The Score. It does not mention The Incredible Hulk in the main article. Since you feel it's helpful to clean up your citations yourself, I'll leave you to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To get an article to good article status takes a bit of work. Featured articles are even more work. You can find the basic criteria at WP:GACR, but the better way to see what is expected is to look at other good articles in the category in which the article would fall at WP:GA. The best way to learn is by working on one. They take time and commitment. I'm in the midst of finishing up my work on an article right now and hope to have it ready to nominate by the end of the week. One of the things that come up in reviews for them is the ability to cover the content adequately without indulging in too much rhetoric and hyperbole but still conveying what is necessary to fully cover it. It's a bit of a slippery slope. I think in regard to the trust, it's more important to cover what he is doing for the charity rather than belabor how he managed to promote it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll check the article later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the flowers. I don't get them often these days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
signature test
this is how it looks now Malke2010 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a tip
NPOV means no point of view, which is good in articles. POV, or point of view, is bad in articles. I hope this cleared the usage up as well.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please ask any questions related to your adoption here. Make sure you understand how the adoption process works though. For example, I am only a guide. Your actions are your own. If you, say, vandalise, you can't use me as a shield, even if I told you to do it, because you had the choice not to. You may want to place {{Adoptee|Thejadefalcon}} on your user page. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope that my advice about vandal fighting works!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
XD what if I ban Jimbo Wales? What would they do to me?Malke2010 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
well , your not an admin. Oh and I cant talk that much right now. Im reading the WP:MIA. So sad. We have lost so many editors :(--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I get an Apprentice Editor badge? I really want one.Malke2010 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OMG you two are parenting me already. I don't know if I meet the requirements. What are the requirements for it?Malke2010 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OKay, I've got that. Where's my badge?Malke2010 03:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
← Here you go: {{SA-novice}} And good news, you are just a few edits away from the next one up: {{SA-apprentice}} Check your edit count and time spent on Wikipedia here. Service awards come from here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
They get put on your user page, generally (or somewhere at the very top of your talk page so that an archive bot, if you choose to use one, won't get rid of it). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit Conflicts
How do you deal with them? Because I'm noticing that you're deleting an awful lot of comments, like this and a few on my talk page. Are you just copy-pasting the entire bottom window to the top window? If you are, you need to just paste what you added into the top window. Otherwise, you'll get slapped with a large soggy fish. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I had no idea I was doing that. XD XD XD XD, oh noooo. . .I must have some kind of magnetic charge around me that causes these things to happen...Malke2010 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL the wet trout. . .that's brilliant.Malke2010 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
From the banner on the top of this page, I see your interested in the Dramaout. You may want to sign up for it on the sign-up page.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested. It seems like a cool idea. I will sign up.Malke2010 03:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jade, you have to sign up for the Dramaout. Coldplay and I are signed up. You do it, too. I'm going to work on the Maasai Trust article. It will be fun.Malke2010 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I'm staying out of it. I work on articles at my own pace. Besides, I don't think I could go a day without smacking vandals around a little, let alone five days. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but we'll miss you.Malke2010 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I cant go a month without being involved in some sort of drama...--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Commonwealth of Virgina. Isn't that cool? You live in a Commonwealth, not a just an ordinary State. So you're not gonna do the no drama thingy? Also, yesterday, there was this guy who spoke up for me on Abce2's page, and this guy ended up getting blocked. Whoa, don't mess with Abce2, eh? Can you find out exactly why he got blocked? Is there a record of that.Malke2010 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
He was a troll. I told him to shut up but he just came back. He wasn't speaking up for you, he was trying to make everything worse.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 16:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am participateing. And yes, Its in his block log. Everyone has a blocklog but not everyione has been blocked. (Ill let you in on a secret. I have been blocked before)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 16:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I knew we were simpatico. . .bravo on your block. And see, you've come back from it and you didn't grow hairy hands or succumb to any other ills. . .hey check out the Karl Rove talk page. Is the new section with the Karl Rove divorce/gay marriage comment an example of vandalism? Personally, I think Rove is gay and that's why his marriages keep tanking. Seriously. He wants to come out of the big Republican walk-in closet, but I don't think I should mention that on his talk page, do you?Malke2010 16:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, hello there Abce2, didn't see your post. I totally got that he didn't have good intentions, but I did love what he said. Did you notice I didn't reply underneath what he said?Malke2010 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
addendum: I meant to say, I loved what the guy said about Chhe. Not the mean thing he said about you.Malke2010 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Want tdo you mean bravo on my block, It was terrible. I logged into 2 other accounts (One was used for a personal attack) and asked for an unblock on my IP! What I did on Sep 19 still disgusts me. (I can show you the diffs If you want, but I would rather not)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So sorry. I didn't go and check on your block as I don't know how to look up all that stuff anyway. I had no idea of what you did. . .I assumed you were blocked for the same lame newbie reasons I was. . .But let's take comfort in the words of Aldous Huxley, (sorry I must paraphrase a bit as I don't recall the exact words) "If you've done wrong, make amends and vow to do no wrong again. But don't keep hashing it over. . .rolling in the muck won't get you clean." Those last words are exact. He has them in the intro to Brave New World. So no more muck rolling, especially if you still haven't grown hairy hands.Malke2010 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's my [4] (I think). (You'll notice that the second block was purely accidental and was reverted a minute later).--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't go looking for these things for just anybody. Here is Aldous' complete quote and I want you to recite it three times a day until you've started to say, "Blocks? What blocks? I don't have any blocks." Here it is: If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrongdoing. Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean. God, I love Aldous.Malke2010 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, there, now I must go for now. . .I must go save the state of California from novel swine flu.Malke2010 17:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit Summaries
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are allowed to do many things in edit summaries, but lying is not one of them.— DædαlusContribs 23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Um...its her (did I get that right?) talk page. And per WP:UP, she can do whatever she wants to messages on it. (The ES was more than likely an acident as "adding comment" it a very common ES and can be used for multiple things. Thank you.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for not even knowing the rules and talking down to me as if I didn't know them myself. Did you even read my message? First of all, she cannot do anything she wants with any message. She cannot delete selective parts of messages, as that is refactoring posts, and is strictly prohibited, nor, per what I already said, can she change specific parts of a post. This includes removing a signature or replacing the signature with your own or someone else's, so don't you dare quote policy to me when you don't even know it yourself. How about you actually read what you cite before you bother citing it. Lastly, my beef wasn't what she did with the message, but her edit summary. She is not allowed to lie about what the edit entails. She obviously was not adding a message but removing one. Deceit in edit summaries simply isn't allowed, just like one isn't allowed to call good-faith edits vandalism.— DædαlusContribs 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re, your message, you know exactly what I am talking about, I quite clearly linked in my post to you where you lied in an edit summary.— DædαlusContribs 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
First off. It takes a lot to egg me on here but this is rediculous. WP:UP states, and I quote. "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. She did not remove part of a comment but the whole thing. Second, you need to read WP:CIVIL. Dont point out a twig in one's eye when you have a log in yours. Se removed the whole thing and she is allowed to.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 01:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously reading selective parts of my post? Try reading the entire thing before getting back to me, thanks.— DædαlusContribs 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have read the whole thing. But you have failed to provide diffs for your accusations. All that you have shown is that she removed a whole section, nothing else.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe you when you say that I said one thing when I in fact said something entirely different. Again, please read my entire post before getting back to me. If you wish me to point out your fallacies, in light of not being able to find them yourself, then just ask.— DædαlusContribs 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? You have provided no evidence to back up you claims of any violation of WP:UP. Further, you are insulting me throught the last part of your comment. You need to give me diffs for me to verify anything. Without them, you have left me in the dark.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, first, I'll start by stating things in a summary, then I'll explicitly cite and explain:
First of all, I stated that Mal is not allowed to lie in edit summaries. You then come on the page defending Mal, saying that she can remove posts and other things. I correct you, saying that she cannot do specific things, and again refer to my above statement. You fail to listen and again put words in my mouth.
Now for the explicit explanation:
I stated, to Mal, that she is not allowed to Lie in edit summaries, as she did here. You come defending her, stating that she can do whatever she wants with messages on it, citing WP:UP. I clarify to you, that she can not indeed do anything she wants with any messages. I state what she cannot do with messages. I do not state that she perpetrated any of the described acts. Further, I never stated that she was not allowed to remove messages.
You wrongly state that you have read the post, even telling me that I didn't back up my accusation(even though I quite clearly did, when I cited her lying in an edit).
Therefore, I stand by my statement that you have not read my post. You are quite obviously assuming and reading into my posts, instead of reading them explicitly, as I have asked of you. So again. Read my post, please, before responding any further.— DædαlusContribs 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Look. You have failed to give me a diff where she removed a fraction of a comment not the whole thing. I agree that she lied in the ES but Im sure that she's sorry ok?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously not reading my posts? Alright, then, I'll try a different tactic. Tell me where I said she refactored any posts. Cite me a diff, but here, I'll do the work for you: I didn't, I simply told you that you were wrong when you said she could do anything. I told you what she can specifically not do, I did not say she did anything, so please, read my post and stop assuming. In fact, I'm sure I've seen you on IRC before, can you perhaps get on freenode and message me? It will be easier to discuss this, my nick is Daedalus969, on irc.freenode.net.— DædαlusContribs 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
And I honestly don't care if she's sorry or not, however, I do care about you apologizing for putting words in my mouth and not reading my posts.— DædαlusContribs 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You cannot have seen me on IRC as I have never been there. As for the second part. Sorry. Now can we please end this drama? (asks nicely)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
First, since this is my talk page: Lied? Perhaps wrote the wrong word as in 'added' instead of 'deleted.' Innocent mistake. Rare to write 'deleted' common to write 'added.' Therefore, no prima fascia evidence exists to substantiate the accusation of lying. And second, what's the guy doing coming around to check on edit summaries in the first place? He leaves a rude message, I delete it, end of story, until he comes back to make trouble over it. We are not making trouble here. Nobody is lying, or failing to see anything except Daedalus969. So listen to this Daedalus969: If you come back to my talk page, I will take you to the AN/I noticeboard. There is plenty here to get you blocked. You are harassing me beyond the pale. This is my notification/wikipedia warning per the rules to you, Daedalus969, go home to your page. Stay off mine.Malke2010 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Given your past incivility to other users, lying didn't seem out of the question for you. Now that that is clarified, I don't care. Even if you weren't lying, you now know that you cannot lie in edit summaries. The same goes for marking non-minor edits as minor, as I have seen OTHER(this if for you, CE), NOT YOU, users do in the past. Secondly I am not failing to see anything, I am reading things quite clearly, unlike Coldplay, who assumed things of me and wrongly put words in my mouth, so your accusation of blindless is a breach of WP:CIVIL, and unwarranted given the above information. Lastly, good luck with the ANI post. I have left a total of 4 messages to you, none of them hostile, all of them blunt. I first linked you to an explanation of what a diff was. That was a while ago, I don't remember when. I then told you that you are not allowed to tell anyone to stay out of a discussion. You deleted that, and I came here about your edit summary that I interpreted as a lie, given your past personal attacks of yours at other users, and those blocks for said personal attacks. Lastly, I came here to reply to you about the edit summary, as you left a message on my talk page asking for clarification. That leaves 4 messages to you, so there is no way in hell you can even claim that I was harassing you. The other 90% of this discussion was not directed to you, I was talking with CE, who refused to discuss his inability to read my posts on his talk page, and insisted on discussing it here. I don't expect you to apologize for the insult of the inability to see, but for shits and giggles, let's see if you can actually back up that accusation. Let's not forget, unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. I'm sure this would be a very interesting thing to note in your ANI report of me, given your past of personal attacks.— DædαlusContribs 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and for more shits and giggles, do tell how I am harassing you beyond the pale, when I was indeed not even talking with you, but another user.— DædαlusContribs 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm making a report on the AN/IMalke2010 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Norton
I'd characterize it as a self-aggrandizing vandal, sort of like the ones who put in articles that a given actor has dated him or her. 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of my favorites are like the ones who add "he is gay" to Ian McKellen articles. Like we didn't have a clue! I'm good. I was looking at the sign-up for The Great Wikipedia Dramaout and would love to be a part of that, but I get dragged into drama all the time. I'm good, thanks, how are you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that. Well, you haven't really arrived here until someone yells at you for something, thus a dramaout. This seems more picayune than usual, though. I thought it was funny. I was once congratulated by an administrator for working in the word "dude" in an edit summary. Keep a sense of humor, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, here. I was actually encouraged to repeat it [5][6][7]. Don't sweat the small things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. You might consider making a WP:WQA report on what is going on, too, including the personal attack warning you were given. Sheesh. Fighting across talk pages. Talk later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Coldplay Expert. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Slandering me on another user's talk page? Are you serious? His arguments were in no way well-reasoned; I indeed have to ask if you even bothered to read mine. He falsely asserted that I said something which I did not. You want me to leave you alone? Stop insulting me behind my back. — DædαlusContribs 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, you don't know shit about my motivations or my reason for posting, so don't you dare act like you know what my motivations are when you don't know shit.— DædαlusContribs 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I cant belive that Im going to say this but your now crossing the line. Please stop this! We need to be WP:CIVIL (something which I myslef didnt do)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I warned Daed and this is your warning. Don't continue this here or on any other pages (except WP:WQA, as livie said). WP:NOTTHEM applies- it takes two to tango, and you're not blameless. Okay? tedder (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain the purpose of collecting diffs of Deadalus's contributions? He's been blocked, and unless you are planning an imminent action involving our dispute resolution steps you should probably remove them. AniMate 06:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are the copies of Deadalus's contributions you have under the section titled "Stuff". You have ten of them, and unless there is an imminent step you are about to take involving dispute resolution, you should not have a collection of quotes on your user page from someone you are in conflict with. AniMate 06:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to the "rule": WP:UP#NOT states Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. I don't think any of our editors would be thrilled to find a user they are in conflict keeping a list of our perceived misdeeds readily viewable for everyone else, especially if they were currently blocked. You don't need to keep them up there until you are finished collecting. Copy them somewhere offline and remove them quickly. AniMate 07:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
your 'stuff' section
Unless you plan on using a dispute resolution process in the very short term, please remove the above section labeled "stuff", per guideline 10 on WP:UP#NOT: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."
Even if you do plan on going to some WP:DR process soon, I'd strongly recommend putting those in your browser bookmarks and removing them from Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything in that section which states that the diffs collected are intended to record negative information. In fact, by looking at a collection of diffs with no explanation and assuming that they record negative information on others you are failing to assume good faith. Perhaps you believe you have a right not to assume good faith at this time, however your actions could be seen as inflaming the situation. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear SW3 5DL/Archive 1, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.
Should I nominate Coldplay for Featured Article Status?
Well. I have a feeling someone will beat me to this in the wikicup so should I nominate it? Before you say "yes" please take a look at the Featured article criteria and make sure that it meats the criteria. Thanks!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? This is excellent. You have great mastery of the topic. References, etc. Just need a little grammar tweaking. It's great. Great opening, too, btw because it tells you immediately what this battle is all about. Yeah, so, man up and nominate it.Malke2010 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
But first, we edit.Malke2010 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That's German for Yes, Yes, Mr. Coldplay. the Germans often say, "Yes, yes," when they are acknowledging something with a little emphasis as in, "Want me to pull you onto the lifeboat? You seem to be drowning." And the guy in the water says, "Yah, Yah," LOL. So, I'm enthusastically acknowledging that Yeah, dude, I'm talking about the Battle of Belgium.Malke2010 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. But I already nominated Battle of Belgium for GA status. (I would have done FA but I need to be one of the top contributor for that) now what about the Coldplay Article. I am a top contributor in that article so do you think that I should nominate that one for an FA?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I wasn't paying attention to the other post. Let me go and check Coldplay.Malke2010 18:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ja, I know, but I wanted to go phonetically. Thanks. :DMalke2010 20:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback info
You asked about talkback on Thejadefalcon's page asking about talkback. The talkback is a convenient thing that alerts the user that they have a message for them on a talk page. The talk back template is used when the user places a reply on beneath the last message. Then the user places the template on the other user's talk page, alerting them of a message on the user's page. The real convience is that you don't have to check you watch list every single second(you know what I mean). Cheers to a new year!--Microsoft 1000Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
How cool. I want one. Cheers to a New Year to you, too. And Happy Blue Moon. Magic happens under a blue moon.Malke2010 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Hello, can somebody get my status button at the top of my talk page working? Thanks, Malke2010 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I will leave the help template in case someone more expert can give more specific help, but see whether Template:Statustop/doc tells you how it works. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi there! You need to set your status at User:Malke 2010/Status. I have adjusted that to say "busy" for now. Please note that it may take a few minutes to show up after you change it, or that you may need to purge the displaying page (this page). If you have any further questions please feel free to ask! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks to both of you for the help and the speedy replies. I will go and do as you've instructed now.Malke2010 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad everything worked out. Actually, hopefully in the future you get a reply much faster :) For some reason our bot isn't reporting those templates properly and it was very delayed in alerting us. Hopefully it will be fixed shortly, but for the time being, if you need any further help with this particular issue, I have no problem with you dropping me a line directly at my talk page. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Are you trying to archive something to an archive page like mine? Or are you trying to just hide it away? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Tech help redux
{{helpme}}
Would someone from the help desk please tell me how to archive the "Edit Summary" section of my talk page? I'd appreciate learning how to do this. Thanks a bunch, :D Malke2010 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. If you're trying to do just a portion of a page, there isn't really a good way to do it automatically. You are best off just doing it manually using the instructions at WP:Archive. Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Going there now.Malke2010 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
for looking out for me today. Oh and dont get all worried about the REALLY TIRED template at the top of my page :D--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Did you edit the article and nom it yet?Malke2010 16:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Status
So, I see you've already fixed the status button. I think I gave Ninjalemming some impervious ideas. Whats he up to? No one gets past the ruler without talking to me blahahahaha!--Microsoft 1000Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh ho! I just picked up signals from the ninja's server! They're planning to invade in about a week at the most. I already contacted my rebel friends! The help is only a few light years away so they could be here in about 4 days at most. I already wreaked havoc on the alien supercomputer. You can tell that his alien friends are about to see a new version of STAR WARS!--Microsoft 1000Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Question
I was wondering if you wanted to work on the Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) article to get it to GA. Just asking while hungry,I'm also not on during the afternoon on weekdayss, just to let you know.Abce2 (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never read the strip, but looking it over it seems like Calvin and Hobbs. I'm working on several things at the moment, but am happy to lend a hand with grammar and citation checks.Malke2010 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It's different than Calvin and Hobbs, much, much different. But not in a bad way. Cheers,Abce2 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm reading it over now.Malke2010 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you found it useful. That's the good news, the bad news is that Jade has retired. A few moments of silence...................--Microsoft 1000Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sad day. . .Malke2010 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, wait a miniute, its Jade! IRS A WIKIZOMBIE! Oh, wait, he's alive(not undead, alive) go to his talk page! WOO HOO!(almost forgot to sign!)--Microsoft 1000Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, The Bird is back. Three cheers!Malke2010 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Second opinion needed
Hi. I was wondering if you could check over my latest User essay. Any comments would be nice (check my latest contrib for it and reply here) Thanks.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Bold and fresh approach to a serious problem. My thoughts are that it should include a 'solutions section.' One solution would be to require users to log in and create an account. In this way, less time and energy is spent reverting IP vandals. Making just a small change like that could have a big impact.Malke2010 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Im certainly not done with it. But these past few days are the reason that I wrote it. Wikipedia is falling apart. I'm now going to add the sections for,
Well. You told me in the past that you would like to have rollback. Well im here to help you get it. Before you go and apply over at the WP:RFR, you should have some form of vandal fighting under your belt. The best sopt to find vandalism is over at the Recent Changes. You should check all of the diffs before you click the undo button and be sure to put the warning template on their talk page after. If you have any other questions just ask. Hope this helps!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good tip. About the warning template: make sure it's vandalism, roll it back, then go to the user's talk page and leave a template warning them. What about all those IP's that zip in, vandalize, then zip out again? Do you still leave a template? Also, sometimes I've run across stuff that is so bad, I've taken it straight to an admin to ask about it, and they've blocked the user.Malke2010 00:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jade. Malke2010 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have to always warn them. Failure to do so will result in you not getting rollback. After a while you could apply for it. THen you can use WP:Huggle if you want.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 01:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Where do I get the warning template? Is that automatic?Malke2010 04:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Already working on my articles.Malke2010 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ridley Park
No, I'm not from there, I was just doing disambiguation for Victorian. Coincidentally tho, I've been there a few times. I live in Chester County and one of my good friends used to live there. There was a diner there we used to go to. I think it's called Nifty Fiftys or something like that... But, yes, it was just random that I edited Ridley Park. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be Northbook Orchards, that's very close to where I live. Or Barnards. But, yes, there are a few, for sure. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That edit is not disruptive. On the contrary, that edit is following wikipedia policy. Specifically, Wikipedia:Criticism says that instead of having a section called "criticism," it's better to incorporate the info throughout the relevant sections of the article. Thus, Malke 2010's edit was in accordance with wikipedia's policies. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Thanks for the comment.Malke2010 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
your report got messed up somehow, do you need assistance fixing it? CTJF83chat 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you.Malke2010 04:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on it at User:Ctjf83/Sandbox but it appears the user didn't violate 3RR CTJF83chat 04:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried again. I'm not reporting for 3rr. I'm reporting for other behavior. Thanks for your help. Go on over to the noticeboard and see what I've done. Appreciate the help.Malke2010 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Other bad behavior goes to WP:ANI not the 3RR noticeboard. CTJF83chat 04:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is edit warring, though is it not?Malke2010 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well 3RR is for more than 3 edits to a page within a 24 hour period. Which he has only done one block of edits in like 42 hours. If you are having disputes, and he isn't trying to resolve them with you, you want to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolutionCTJF83chat 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I went to 3rd opinion and got that.Malke2010 05:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused, what happened at 3rd opinion? CTJF83chat 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I've been struggling to make this report. The 30 editor agreed that the article had issues. She said it read in a racist way. I thought so to. So I put back the tags. He took them off again. He also undid all my edits to weed out the POV pushing and the other issues.Malke2010 05:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ya, you need to go to WP:ANI and state that he keeps removing tags and whatever else he is doing. WP:AN3 is the wrong place for this current situation. CTJF83chat 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. So I'll go delete it from the noticeboard. I need to copy it first. Thanks again. :) Malke2010 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, feel free to ask me for help if you need it again. CTJF83chat 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Malke 2010, why not work with the person who offered a WP:Third opinion to see if you can create a more neutral article? I don't find your arguments convincing. The negative stuff about the Tennessee Republicans is famous and well-sourced. Simply removing it doesn't appear to be the answer. People usually say, if an article has too much negative content, try to find some positive content and add that. Another option is to try to negotiate a shorter presentation of the negative material, without attempting to deny that the bad things occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't really denying that bad things occurred, it's not piling on and finding the sins of every Republican and putting them in the article. The article isn't about the Republicans of Tennessee. It's about the Tennessee Republican Party, and phrasing sentences with words such as "attacked," etc., are not encyclopedic. And appropriately placing tags on articles should not generate this much drama and waste this much time all around. He's being disruptive. That's apparent. He's not someone that is easy to deal with. When he doesn't get his way he threatens edit wars, and he puts tags on when he can't get his way. I do appreciate your comments, but I think I've been trying to work within the process. This needs an admin to take a look at it, and at the very least, warn him about his disruptive behavior. Sometimes that helps.Malke2010 05:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If any warnings are issued, they will probably go to both parties. As Ctjf83 has observed, there was no 3RR violation. Tags are placed and removed per editor consensus, and so far you're the only one who favors them. If you have a disagreement, you are expected to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a 3rd opinion, and that editor found racism in the article. There is no reason to warn me. I've worked within process. He has not. And edit warring is not limited to the 3RR rule. But I do appreciate your comments and I will wait and see what happens. The criticism tags alone should be there because it is part of WP:MOS to integrate the controversy within the body of the article. I see that another editor has put them there.Malke2010 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Palin and AN/I
I would like to thank you for your contributions to Sarah Palin and the effort you put into the AN/I page. You made my case far better than I ever could have. In a deliciously ironic twist, Scribner has now been reported for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Rightfully so, in my opinion. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to make the archives bot remove the content faster. I only like to keep things on the talk page for a couple of days. How do I adjust it? Thanks.Malke2010 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to 3 days, is that sufficient? CTJF83chat 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Is 3 days archive ok, or do you want it 2? CTJF83chat 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Two would be great because I just like to clear the decks. Thanks.Malke2010 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It won't archive my kitten and bird, etc. will it?Malke2010 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It will only archive things in a section. As long as it isn't timestamped and in a section, you should be okay.— DædαlusContribs 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Daed. Can you check on that and make sure it's okay? Appreciate it.Malke2010 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Things should be fine, but I'm not an expert, so don't get mad at me if I'm wrong.— DædαlusContribs 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Changed to 2 days, and I'm sure it is only time stamp items that get archived. CTJF83chat 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I love the help. I couldn't have done it without you. I've only mastered one real skill in the tech book that came with my new Apple. "Step: 1: First we turn on Mr. Switch." Not kidding. Thanks again.Malke2010 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!!
Thank you very much for the barnstar. It is very much appreciated! CTJF83chat 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Malke2010 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Footnotes
In this edit, your change included deleting a footnote that looked like this:
<ref name="Assails Obama"> {{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/politics/08palin.html |title=Palin Assails Obama at Tea Party Meeting | author=Kate Zernike |work=New York Times |date=February 6, 2010</ref>
If you don't understand why that was a mistake, please see link rot. In the future, you should avoid adding naked url footnotes to articles.
Also, in the edit above, what you did resulted in four different footnote numbers (all being naked urls), even though the source is exactly the same. Repeating the same citation in multiple places is highly undesirable. Wikipedia has the "name=" option for footnotes to avoid this problem, and I used that option to fix this error, in an edit I did previous to the one we're discussing here - a change that you apparently didn't understand, since you didn't keep my change. Please see this guideline for more details. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the ref button isn't smart enough to add all the information that should go into a proper reference/footnote/citation - in fact, all it does it put "ref" tags around whatever you tell it to. I find it's easiest to use the cite news and cite web templates to do a proper footnote. Keeping in mind that the order of information is totally flexible, one way to do this is to store, in Notepad or TextEdit or whatever, something like this:
You'll find the full list of parameters at Template:Cite news and, similarly, Template:Cite web; as illustrated above, you're not required to use all the parameters (and it's confusing to other editors if you include ones without values). Unfortunately, the above explanation is only a quick summary; some editors use First=, Last= for authors, and if the underlying source is something like the Associated Press, you should include "publisher=AP".
I don't want to deny that a footnote with a naked url is better than nothing at all, but urls do go bad, and even when they don't, they get put behind paywalls. So yes, this is more work to do. On the other hand, once you've created a footnote for a source, you only have to add the "name=" parameter, as in: <ref name="Whatever">, to be able to avoid having to copy the entire footnote every place you use the same source. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Tea Party protests, 2009 Lockdown
Hi Malke2010, it appears an editor with a personal conflict apparently tried to rewrite several sections of the article. I'm happy he was very honest about his intentions, but sad to see the only way of getting his attention was by locking down the page. Unfortunately, the editor doesn't seem to be responding very well to overtures of collaboration. This will probably resume once the page is unlocked, sadly. Hope not.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Think Enemies
Malke, please carefully look over WP:BLP (which has sway on all pages within en.Wikipedia, talk and project pages too), WP:NPA and WP:Edit warring if you haven't done already. From what I can see, you still weren't wholly aware of the tight bounds put forth in those policies, but have now acknowledged that there was something amiss with how you were posting and that you're willing to abide by the policies, which is why you were unblocked. Keep sternly to citing sources and talking about how to echo them in articles and you'll mostly be ok. For now, if you think another editor is doing something untowards, please don't bring it up on an article talk page but rather, ask any admin for help. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen Gale, you are correct, I was not aware of the policy. My concern on the Sarah Palin page was that editors were coming back and refractoring her speech as well as substituting a well founded source with a source that was an opinion/attack piece. That to me is clearly POV pushing. The admin/editor did not acknowledge this and I did not understand why he kept removing my posts especially since he made it plain his concern was for Joe Klein. This came across to me as blatant POV pushing on his part. I also questioned the admin/editor's COI from a recent exchange I had with him on the Barack Obama talk page. I did not know this admin/editor was an admin and when I found that out it appeared to me that he was not only POV pushing but abusing his admin powers as well.
I told him that I felt he was not an uninvolved admin and that he was POV pushing. In my opinion, at that point he should have gotten another admin to mediate this exchange or he could have used the noticeboards where my lack of understanding would have been made clear by a neutral third party. At that point I would have been more than happy to disengage. Instead, I was blocked.
Thank you for your comments and explanation. Had you been around that night, none of this would have occurred.Malke2010 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody forces you to attack other editors; you agreed to remove some attacks as part of the unblock proposal. If you go back to using that kind of language you may be in trouble again. Be sure you realize that it's up to you. Nobody should edit our political articles unless they have a thick skin, and can control their temper. Any more edit summaries like this edit to Sarah Palin, where you charge Time Magazine and Joe Klein with racism, will lead to bad results. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
EdJohnston: Thank you for your comments. I was not attempting to engage in any argument. I was merely given Gwen Gale an explanation of how things seemed to me as they occurred. But I'd like to point out that regarding Palin's speech, it has been suggested that I listen to the Youtube presentation of it. I did that and what I heard is exactly the way the New York Times reported it as.Malke2010 08:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Email
Hey girl, finally got my emails working (well sort of, that's why I'm writing here) and can read them; however, my replies won't send so there's another problem that needs a fixin'. Should be able to send reply soon though. =P 'The Ninjalemming' 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool deal, Ninja. Looking forward to it.Malke2010 23:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
My threads are supposed to get archived after two days, but that's not happening. Can a nice, tech savvy editor fix this for me? Appreciate that.Malke2010 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two parameters for the bot, minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive. Because you have not set them, it uses the default values of 5 for minthreadsleft and 2 for minthreadstoarchive. That means it will archive threads when there are at least 2 old enough and there will be at least 5 remaining on the page after archiving. If 2 are archived from this page, there will be only 4 left so the bot is not archiving any threads now. You can set these parameters to values you choose by following the guide at User:MiszaBot/config. Also see User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ for more details on this. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaaotalk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, umm, I think it's better if someone more qualified performs that function. I'm not tech savvy which is why I'm asking for help. Can someone set this so that it will archive all threads every two days? Thanks much.Malke2010 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this should work for 2 day archive and 0 remaining posts. I just copied what I had and changed it to your name, and includes a archive box. I changed it up top CTJF83GoUSA 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thanks Ctjf83. Appreciate that. So I don't have to do anything else right? This is all set? Good to go?Malke2010 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good to go, let me know in around 24 hours if it doesn't work. Actually I have your talk page on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it works. CTJF83GoUSA 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's very nice of you. Thanks a bunch :) Malke2010 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I was slacking on this....hopefully the new changes work. CTJF83GoUSA 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the interest! We're always in need of anyone interested. I don't really know what your main interests are, but feel free to add your name here and contribute in whatever way you want—creating, expanding, sourcing, anything at all would help. Thanks again! fetchcomms☛ 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
2009 flu pandemic
Hey, I reverted your edits on 2009 flu pandemic. One edit broke the template for the data. The other (adding "Swine flu" to the lead sentence) contradicts the title of the article. However, to your point of clarity that same sentence does mention that the N1H1 flu is also known as "the swine flu" so the information is still there. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it can be confusing. I don't really follow this subject closely but less and less I hear people calling it "swine flu" and more just H1N1 (by people I mean journalists, doctors, etc.) which I guess is the official name thus more encyclopedic. I'm not sure what would make it clearer for lay people that wouldn't involve a greatly expanded title. Wow, I just checked and there's an extensive discussion on this matter in the Talk archives Talk:2009_flu_pandemic/Archive_Name_Change. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wade into that mess. SQGibbon (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The bot is not archiving every two days, despite multiple interventions (see threads above). Is it possible that the clock is blocking the bot? I'm not tech savvy but I can see when something's not working. Thanks.Malke2010 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I use this bot, and it ran OK two days ago on my page and it's working OK on other pages. As far as I know the bot will only archive a thread based on the latest date of a message in that thread. You have no "|minthreadstoarchive=" - so that defaults to 2. Not sure if "|minthreadsleft=0" is allowed, that might cause it to default to 5. You have no parameter for "|counter = ", I would change that to "|counter = 1" - the bot will then change it as Archive 1 gets too big. Otherwise post a message on User talk:Misza13 - AFTER reading User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ronhjones, thanks for the reply. Could you also fix it? I have no idea what you just said above, but it sounds like it will work. I'll give you a barnstar.Malke2010 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added the number to the "counter" field, you are on Archive 1, so 1 is correct, when the "maxarchive" size gets to 200K as you set, then the bot will change the counter to 2, and start Archive 2. I changed "minthreadsleft" to 2, that means that the page will never be blank, just have the last 2 threads showing. Also changed "minthreadstoarchive" to 1, so that means that the bot should archive as soon as the thread is old enough, and not wait until several threads are ready. Note that I also added a new line to separate this template from the next one (AutoArchivingNotice) as you had }}{{ - no separation between the end of one and the start of the other. Just to compare here is mine copied from my talk page - Note that now there is not much difference, I use the default header (it defaults to {{Talkarchive}} if not specified), so I don't use the "archiveheader" parameter. I do note that {{atnhead}} is now a redirect to {{Talkarchivenav}}, so it it still don't work try altering or deleting that line.
Hopefully it might now work. User:MiszaBot III does the user talk pages, you can always check the contributions to see if it's working. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, I appreciate it.Malke2010 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It worked then! - User talk:Malke 2010; 15:27 . . (-11,670) . . MiszaBot III (talk | contribs | block) (Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Malke 2010/Archive 1.) (and thanks for the barnstar) Ronhjones (Talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay, it worked! And you're welcome for the Barnstar. I love those things, they're great.Malke2010 19:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Term limits
I think term limits make a lot of sense and would increase accountability of admins. Since postulating the idea, I have seen threads discussing it with the 'opposers' making arguments against concerning logistics and it leading to a shortage of admins. Overall however, I think a reconfirmation process would be an overall good thing. What do you have in mind? J04n(talk page) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at J04n's talk page. Message added 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Okay, thanks for the link here. I will get to work on it.Malke2010 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflicts
Hi there and thanks for the message. For some time I have been on the verge of giving up with that article...it's too much like banging my head against a brick wall. I'm an editor here because I want to improve Wikipedia: I don't have any particular interest in that article, other to make it better, and if I don't seem able to do that, I'll use my time on a different article. Please do continue to contribute. At the moment the article is being dominated by one person's views (with occasional grumpy comments from me). It really needs a few more experienced editors to be involved. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a suggestion by someone that the editor in question was the same person as User:PilgrimRose. PilgrimRose was banned for a month following previous behaviour on the same article. The suggestion was that he or she closed that account and created this new account. I don't know whether these are indeed the same person, other than that their inter-personal styles are similar! I also don't know if there is any rule against closing one user account and starting a new one (probably not). Bluewave (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support :-) Bluewave (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I've now had a message on my talk page from Zlykinskyja, accusing me of entering into a conspiracy with you, spreading rumors and getting "meatpuppets" to do my dirty work. Bluewave (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Malke:
You have made numerous claims about me to an administrator and on my talk page. The gist of your discussion seems to be to try to get me banned or blocked or in trouble somehow. You have accused me of engaging in an edit war, you have told me that I should stop editing on the Kercher article, you have accused me of not using good sources, you have accused me of being somehow connected with the case, of editing POV, and on and on. I do not even know where you came from. You have not been involved with this Kercher article, while I have put many hours into this. You just show up and start making accusations against me. This all starts after you and Bluewave seem to agree to help each other with this article or against me on his or your talk pages. What is going on is harassment and it is very upsetting. Please leave me alone.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is telling you to stop editing, but rather the suggestion is that you start using the process. You might want to begin by asking the administrator, Gwen Gale, for suggestions on how to best proceed. She is a very fine person and an excellent administrator here on Wikipedia and I am sure you will find her helpful. You yourself are raising flags here with your behavior. Bluewave is following the process. And please be aware, editors have lots of pages on their watch lists. When new edits are made, the watchlist displays the page and the name of the editor making the changes. You are as free to go to other editors and ask for help and suggestions as Bluewave has done. Go to Gwen Gale's page and speak with her about this.Malke2010 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, things will go much more easily for everyone if you please cite sources for all your edits. Thanks. Y'all, please stop commenting on other editors but rather, stick to reliable sources and how to echo them in the text. Anything in the text which is uncited and in dispute can be taken out. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, the clock here seems to be a bit slow. Can somebody fix that? Thanks.Malke2010 06:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia runs on UTC time. This may be different from your local time. NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, I know that. But when I make an edit, I noticed that the time of that edit seems later than my clock and I'm thinking it's running a bit behind. Maybe? Malke2010 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well, right now it says 21:26, so when I leave this edit we'll see what the time is on the edit.Malke2010 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Working now, it seems. Thanks everybody. Hey Coldplay. How ya doin'?Malke2010 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just fine. I just created my (upcomming) fourth DYK a few mintues ago. Going into round two of the wikicup I'll have 40 points.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. When's the wikicup getting awarded?Malke2010 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to take part in a straw pole on my user talk page, Malke.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk 00:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Request for no edits
I am requesting that you make no edits to Irish American as it is up for mediation. Please sign on the mediation page to say that you will not edit the article (even if you don't, I will take any edits to WP:RPP). If you see content that you wish to have changed, feel free to put it on my talk page oremail me. (I am the current Mediator for this request) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Re to the note on my talk page: Nope, your are fine, if you are wondering about the warning notice that was in general. If it was about me moving your signature, i was just moving it up so it was clear you had agreed. If it was about the above, it was so we don't get edit wars. Thanks for checking in. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Mediation Discussion on Murder of Meredith Kercher
I started a good faith discussion on mediation due to the problems which have worsened on the article recently. Now, you have linked on the article Talk page to the page on which you made unfounded accusations against me to Gwen. Those do NOT belong on an article talk page. Please delete your link to Gwen's Talk page. Linking to private conversations like that on an article Talk page is not appropriate, especially in the context of a discussion on trying to find peaceful solutions. Perhaps you do not support mediation, but trying to divulge private information like that, including your false allegations that I am connected with the case, is most hurtful to my efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the process of editing the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. I corrected it myself so that I did not then have to get into a rebuttal of your allegations against me to Gwen on the article Talk page. Hopefully, something like this can be avoided in the future. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:52, 3
March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now the link to Gwens Talk page is back on the article Talk page, where you list your many complaints about me. I wish to ask again that it be removed. Article Talk pages should not be involved in personal disputes behind the scenes, especially where the person being discussed had no opportuntity to respond originally. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I received your message but no indication that you will remove the offending link. Is that how you intend to leave it? The point is that you wrote numerous accusations against me to which I never had the chance to respond. Then you linked to that on a public article Talk page. There is some mention that I am connected with Sollecito, which is 100% false. But given the sensitivity of that issue within the article, I am requesting that you delete the link. The article Talk page should not be used for making accusations against someone. You could have simply linked to the Dispute Resolution page that Gwen was talking about. But instead you chose to include your many unfounded allegations against me by linking to the whole page. Do I have to bring this to the attention of the powers that be to get this removed? Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja: The link is just Gwen's suggestion to go to a request for comment first. RfC. No biggy there. Also, please step back and look at what you are accusing me and the other editors of. Anybody with fresh eyes can see you get too upset first, and ask questions second. Believe it or not, people are sympathetic to you. And if you don't believe me, I think you might have been blocked a while back for some of the stuff you throw at people over on Meredith Kercher. Gwen Gale is being very patient with you and she is a great sysop, so listen to her. She's giving you good advice. Get the request for comment. Open it up to other editors. \\
and yes, if it makes you happy I will remove the link. Malke2010 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
County Derry?
I assume in your message you meant County Derry not County Kerry, yes? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, fixed it on your talk page.Malke2010 02:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
To what article are you referring where the edit war is continuing? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No violation
No, you haven't been vindicated. You shouldn't think of this result in those terms. All that has happened here is that we have spent the better part of two days dealing with this. And there still may be other fall out.
Why didn't you or Izauze or both of you see what was happening and talk it out like civilized people? (Remember, I know nothing about the actual discussion leading up to this. Nor do I want to know.) If necessary, either one of you could have asked for a consensus vote. And while all of us were discussing it, you should've left the article alone. For a week or more. It's my understanding that this whole edit war took place in less than a day. We are not a newspaper; there's nothing that says news must get into Wikipedia in less than a week. Or a month.
I blame both of you for letting this whole edit war happen.
That being said, I'm glad you were not banned or even warned. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Roy. And I certainly take responsibility for myself, but as you said on Izauze's talk page, "just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should use it." And in this case, there was no need to go to the noticeboard in the first place, or, no gun as you call it, because there was no violation by me. No edit warring. Keep in mind, had the admin felt I was being disruptive he would have blocked me for that. He doesn't need 3RR. He saw I was making good faith attempts to resolve issues on the talk page.
And also, as the admin said, there were no warnings that Izauze claims. I had no idea he was in such a state. So please don't blame me. I can't control something if I don't know about it. And if you examine my diffs, you will see my good faith efforts to appease Happysomeone who is often difficult to deal with.
And Izauze's noticeboard complaint was constructed as a 'pile on' if you will. He loaded it up with assertions that were not true and made it appear, by refactoring diffs, that other editors were weighing in and agreeing with him when no such thing occurred. He had no support for his claims. But I find it odd that Happysome did not go over there and make a comment.
And in reading over Izauze's talk page, you must admit, he's going on about me in a very negative way that suggests he's violating WP:NPA. The lack of clear edit warring and 3RR yet still making the complaint appears to be an attempt to ban/block another editor who disagrees with him. This is the worst kind of disruptive behavior. WP:Disruption. And coupled with the clear violations of WP:NPA would give me cause to go to WP:ANI. Malke2010 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I would definitely encourage you, if you think you have a valid case, to go to WP:ANI. I say the same about any case you think you might have regarding your suggestion of WP:SOCK of me and HS1. I would welcome any such actions. --Izauze (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring, reverting of others edits
Hi Malke, I just wanted to encourage you to be carefull of WP:3RR, and to remind you to farmiliarize yourself with WP:revert. As you will see, reverting the edits of others is to be used as a last resort according to Wikipedia guidelines. I encourage you to follow the guidelines. I want us to be able to avoid more administrative reports like yesterdays [8] fiasco. So please let me know if you ever change your mind and are willing to agree to work together in a more productive fashion. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SW3 5DL. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding recent edits and comments. The discussion is about the topic User:Malke2010. Thank you.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Racism in the United States
Hi. I removed the IP's latest addition to the article. I also left the IP a message about adding original research to articles.
The red dot in the second diff means that a period was added to the end of the sentence. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
alerts-user:malke
Malke, I have posted a reponse for you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I will have to assume this matter remains unresolved until I recieve some sort of response from you. Thanks
--Izauze (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And I've responded. I won't be responding anymore. Please take this advice. It comes from a well respected admin. I've already taken it in this whole affair and if my previous posts were too subtle about it, here it is in plain English: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks.Malke2010 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I had no way of knowing you had decided it was all over because you hand't responded previously. But thank you for doing that now. My best, --Izauze (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Image
Hey, just wanted to let you know, so you don't "get in trouble" per WP:NFCC#9 File:CorriganWilliamsbook.gif should be removed from your user page. :) CTJF83chat 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ya, see on the image how it says copyrighted. Anything that is copyrighted isn't allowed on user pages. I "got in trouble" for it, and don't want you to :) CTJF83chat 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by hatted it? I'm unfamiliar with that noticeboard, but can comment if you explain just a little bit. CTJF83chat 20:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me take a look. CTJF83chat 20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, since I'm unfamiliar with that noticeboard, I don't feel comfortable closing a discussion...sorry CTJF83chat 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Paddy's Day
Happy St. Paddy's Day President O'Bama
Magnificent Clean Keeper: I had to mention all that earlier because anybody who keeps President O'Bama's page FA, must be saved.Malke2010 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't really have a horse in this race (in regards to Obama) but still, much appreciated for your thoughts. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must warn you to please stop using the citation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_movement&oldid=348516260#cite_note-Los_Angeles_Times-123 to claim "The Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News claimed it gave coverage to the emerging protests while MSNBC, and the network news outlets, ABC, NBC, and CBS, ignored the coverage." This claim is not in this citation and cannot be verified. We have already discussed this several times before. Thank you. --Happysomeone (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the editor has only been talked to about this once, not even a warning, and I'm not seeing that this is a continuous problem. Is there more than one time that the editor added this information? My suggestion is to talk to this editor. Go to the article talk page, not here, and get input from other editors involved in this article, if consensus is that this source is being used inapropriately talk to this editor, on their talk page, and ask them to stop, if they haven't already. I suspect that will solve your problem. As always the best policy is to [WP:AGF |assume good faith]] when dealing with other editors.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is why Happysomeone is just getting around to the warning here on my talk page. There's been no warning like the admin said. And there's been no problem either, like the admin noticed.
Will you ever address the substance at hand, the cite itself and the comments that appear to be WP:OR? Or not?--Happysomeone (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what the "substance at hand" is? Do you have diffs?Malke2010 01:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
that's what I thought.Malke2010 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't even my edit.Malke2010 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The point at hand (as pointed out at the NOR noticboard): You appear to be repeatedly misstating information attributed to this newspaper story about how several television news programs reported on the Tea Party movement. The Wikipedia article currently states: "The Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News claimed it gave coverage to the emerging protests while MSNBC, and the network news outlets, ABC, NBC, and CBS, ignored the coverage." The article does not say this. This amounts to WP:OR.
Here are the diffs: [11][12][13][14]
Will you please address this apparent error?--Happysomeone (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Why are you showing me diffs of edits you made? You also seem unaware that I did not write the section in that last diff. I moved it. And the edit that is in the article now that you claim I wrote, is the edit I deleted: see talk page. Apparently, it has been put back, and given a phony citation. It is not my edit and if you are so upset about it, you should just delete it. And then you can go figure out what to get upset about next. The only edit I did regarding the Los Angeles Times has been blanked out, by you. now you're beating a horse that doesn't exist.Malke2010 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And you still haven't shown me a diff that shows I used the Los Angeles Times as a source.Malke2010 06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This diff [15]clearly shows that you indeed wrote, and I quote, "The Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News claimed it gave coverage to the emerging protests while MSNBC, and the network news outlets, ABC, NBC, and CBS, ignored the coverage." It then uses http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/15/entertainment/et-onthemedia15 as the cite, which according to the diff you also added. Do you still deny it? --Happysomeone (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It shows I moved the sections. I didn't write the section. If you're so upset about this edit, why haven't you deleted it? Why are you having such an over the top reaction to an edit?Malke2010 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This is my only edit involving the Los Angeles Times and it does reflect what James Rainey wrote:
James Rainey of The Los Angeles Times said MSNBC's attacks on the tea parties paled compared to Fox's support, but Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews were hardly subtle in disparaging the movement.[135] Howard Kurtz has said that, "These [FOX] hosts said little or nothing about the huge deficits run up by President Bush, but Barack Obama's budget and tax plans have driven them to tea. On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC may have dropped the ball by all but ignoring the protests."[136]
You are referring to this:
The Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News claimed it gave coverage to the emerging protests while MSNBC, and the network news outlets[not in citation given][original research?], ABC, NBC, and CBS, ignored[not in citation given][original research?] the coverage.[139]
I deleted that and talked about it on the talk page. Izauze wrote it. Let me repeat that, I did not write it, I deleted it. And that's the end of this.Malke2010 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page. Message added 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What did you mean, check E-mail? I didn't receive any new E-mail from my inbox in my computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.166.182 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't think I've reverted any vandalism on your talk page or from any edits you've made. Do you have a diff of a post for email from me? Thanks. Malke2010 08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
tb
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(incase you missed it) CTJF83chat 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Answer to your question about reporting anons...
Hi again!
To report an anon for vandalism or such, using TW, you can select ARV (while on the User's page or User's Talk page) and check the appropriate boxes, and enter text into the summary (supporting links, etc). That will automagically add it to the Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism page, where a buncha admins normally patrol for blocking purposes and such. Things to ensure are that at least 4 warnings have been given within 24 hours with another vandalism attempt since (in that same time frame). If TW reports there is already an entry, then dont force one - it means someone beat you to it. If it's still ongoing and no one is instituting a block, you may wish to visit the AIV page and add more info in support of the block.
And of course, you definitely want to make sure that you dont give the user a vandalism warning for what might be a good faith edit.
The way I handle questionable edits is to use Twinkle's (ROLLBACK) option instead of (ROLLBACK VANDAL), and then add a Welcome template instead of a Warning template. The Welcome templates have similar warnings for possible vandalism (scroll through the list and pic what is appropriate), that way, if you aren't sure if it's good faith but bad edit as opposed to blatant vandalism, you can issue a polite semi-warning to the user without it being reported as vandalism.
Can you please tell me if a link to a product on Amazon.com is allowed in an article? [16]. Thanks. It's all the way down the page under "references." If yes, I won't revert. Thanks.Malke2010 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I would probably remove it, although I've seen similar links many times before. I am curious, however, why you labeled the previous IP edit as vandalism. Beach drifter (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought the edit he made was for a commercial website to buy things. It seems to be a forum to discuss this game. [17] Should I undo my revert? Thanks.Malke2010 04:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really sure, I think it was a good faith edit, trying to put a link to a forum on related subject matter, however I am not sure how relevant the forum is to the article. Beach drifter (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to revert it then. I think the rule is no commercial sites that sell or promote products.Malke2010 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed it. This one should go down in the hall of fame. I also like one I reverted on The Troubles. See above, "Best Bit O'Vandalism."Malke2010 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"pointless childish bickering". Aye, begorrah. Ironically, there's a connection between that and the example in this section - namely, the IRA. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ay, indeed, but the real IRA have been past that for awhile now, thank God.Malke2010 06:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes. We're talking about the good old days, so to speak. How well I recall the mock campaign slogan for Richard Nixon in 1972: "He kept our boys out of Northern Ireland!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of them. Sounds like it might not even be true. When I was a kid I wrote to Senator Kennedy. Lots of people in Ireland wrote to him and sent him a news clipping about some awful thing that had happened. "Dear Senator Teddy, please ask the president to send the Marines. Please show him this newspaper."Malke2010 07:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I first heard of them from the Irish Rovers song about them, and from the Sean Connery film. It does seem like their existence might have been an invention of the mine owners. This reminds me of something I once heard about the typical office job: "The worst day on your job is better than the best day of being a coal miner." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Rovers. :) And the coal miners, yes that's the worst. Don't know how they did it. And the black lung disease.Malke2010 08:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
They sent me one. I have written back to query who the photographer was and if he was a federal employee within the scope of his duties.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Great. It will be nice to have an official photo now.Malke2010 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
WP:PERM. There is also a direct link WP:RFP/R but if you're not familiar with it it's best to use the PERM link. —Soap— 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Die Post ist nicht dort.Malke2010 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Das kann nicht sein denn ich habe 2 mails geschickt. Bist Du sicher?That's impossible as I've sent you two e-mails by now. Are you sure?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ich verstand alles davon! Hotmail ist ein Problem oft. Ich schaue wieder jetzt.Malke2010 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ich dachte so. Die Uebersetzung war nur fuer "potencial complains from other users". Habe eben 2 mails wiederholt geschickt von einem anderen "account".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm taken a break now so don't wonder if you don't get responses from my side for a while. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't be too picky about the verb forms with Du. I don't have my book with me and I'm guessing here.
Danke. Ich wünsche Du gutes Abend auch. Ich verstehe die Post nicht, die Du sandtes. Warum sagte you know keine Sorgen? Bekommen Du es nicht. Das ist wahrscheinlich ganz richtig. Gute Nacht Malke2010 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem which I'll try to figure out today or no later than tomorrow and will update you ASAP. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für Ihre Anmerkungen. Ich verstehe, was Sie ihn fragen.
Er versucht, ein Argument wieder zu machen. Er will diskutieren und irgendetwas nicht auflösen. Er sagt, dass mir nicht erlaubt wird, dort zu kommentieren. Mir wird nur erlaubt, mich über seinen Posten zu äußern. Wie lächerlich ist das? Ich hoffe, dass das Sinn hat.Malke2010 18:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're referring to a certain thread which is closed by now. If I misunderstood please explain, either here or by e-mail if it's confidential. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, got one. Thanks.Malke2010 04:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please,
Please do not post the Dayewalker has made claims. He has not. I have known him, on wikipedia, for awhile now, and he is not that person. Please do not assume bad faith. He only means for the best.— DædαlusContribs 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Daed, no worries.Malke2010 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Daed, I just removed a bunch of posts. I hope that gets all of it. I'm sure Dayewalker is a great guy if you are speaking up for him. Good to know.Malke2010 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you IP, replied on your user page.Malke2010 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry...
about this. My mouse slipped on my watchlist. AniMate 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Happy St. Pat's Day to you.Malke2010 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
for the good wishes. My first of the day! St. Patrick's Day is a bit important to my Patrick family genealogy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Happy St. Pat's.
Thanks for the message. Happy St. Pat's to you, too. Eastcote (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Same to you.Abce2 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and you too!
Many thanks for the message! Belatedly, a happy St Patrick's Day to you too! (I'm sorry I only picked up the message rather late because I was out celebrating on the evening of the 17th......It is my wife's birthday on St Patrick's day!) I guessed from your time frame that you are probably towards the west coast, but you mentioned Santa Monica: what a wonderful place, with those beautiful sunsets over the ocean. Cheers Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You too, Malke!
I grew up in Boston (Irish-Catholic, family of 14, etc.), so St. Patrick's was always a celebration for us. We never missed the downtown parades and other festivities. Later in life, I used to make an annual Savannah trip with a Navy ship where we turned the river green. Nowadays, not much activity at this time of year... Fcreid (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the nicest users
You, sir/ma'am, are one of the nicest Wikipedians I've come across. Thanks for being an awesome person! MoozerSkadoozer (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. Do I know you? IP, is that you?Malke2010 03:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That's some impressive detective work. What gave it away? MoozerSkadoozer (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the name. Very nice.Malke2010 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
St. P day
Cheers Malke, only just got the message, I did wear green on that day; because of my supposide (erm, that is how you spell it right?) Irish heritage. Sorry I couldn't reply sooner =P 'The Ninjalemming' 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a cranky person
So I don't celebrate this holday. Thanks anyway you goofball.Jarhed (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In response to your question on my talk page, I would prefer it if you didn't modify my "sandbox", by which I think you mean my user subpage concerning TPm History. I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although please look at the TPm talk for my request for consensus.
You can, of course, edit the History section in the article itself before I update. I will track every change to History and update my user subpage before I commit to changing the article itself. In this way, you can be assured that all changes you make to the article will find their way to the user subpage concerning History and possibly to the updated article. But, for now, please limit yourself the comments on the TPm talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Mean words
Yeah that section is going to be a hot spot. It makes sense to finally have something but hopefully it doesn't get blown out of proportion or into scandal mongering.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That section really has turned into a pain! Quick note: Keep an eye out for WP:CLAIM.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yo Malke, just dropping into say that I will now be able to respond to emails more quickly now as I have a new email address on a new computer; now I just have to reacquire your email and I can send an email. DOn't know why I didn't just get your email and email you this but hey, what the hell. Now to work out how to obtain it from the wiki. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. Would you mind removing or striking the personal attack you just made on the Tea Party movement talk page? Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack. It's an accurate description.[19].Malke2010 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood. I was referring to "And Xenophrenic is already edit warring over it. This is his pattern." Should I consider this a refusal to strike or remove the personal attack? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You are edit warring. You always edit war when you don't get your own way. That's why the page got locked down for two weeks. That is your pattern. I expect next you'll give Gwen Gale a shout.Malke2010 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the page lockdown to which you refer. I do recall the page being protected in March after someone was trying to insert all sorts of POV crap about a living person, and I kept removing it. Fortunately, that tendentious editor hasn't pulled that stunt again. As for your incorrect opinion that I am edit warring, you are welcome to take it to the Complaints Department. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You are edit warring. You edit war whenever you don't get your own way. You claim everybody else has a POV except you. And you don't care at all for the rules. You care only about you. That's why they wrote this for you: [20]. Malke2010 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess you couldn't dig up an admin to ride to your rescue, eh? Maybe you'll go quiet now.Malke2010 07:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - you lost me with that reference. Rephrase? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Time for all editors to follow Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Drop the stick and move on. You aren't going to make this editor do what you want by harassing them on their talk page. If you have a problem, seek DR.— DædαlusContribs 11:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
155.219.241.10
I just had this posted on my talk page:
I'm actually encouraging people to create links for articles on http://ReLearnHistory.com allowing them to use their Amazon Associates account and earn a percentage of whatever books might be sold via their link. It may result in quite a few footnotes, but those are easier to delete than add. Besides, capitalism seems to have been a good motivator for humanity, why not try it when it comes to online multi-user-generated reference books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain to this person the meaning of 'spam'? I have no idea why s/he thought I'd be interested in this, and I have no idea where to report it. Flatterworld (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea either.Malke2010 14:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The Birthday note
Thank you muchly Malke, it was very tastey; I even saved you a piece...then ate it, sorry I was hungry =P Huuuummm cake breath <hug> 'The Ninjalemming' 18:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad you liked it.Malke2010 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
help wanted
{{help}}
Can you please tell me how do I add to the info box on this page [21]? I want his religion to show because it's a large part of who he is and is featured prominently in the book about him. Thanks.Malke2010 08:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That article does not mention his religion, so before adding his religion to the infobox you should probably add to the body of the article the information about his religion along with the source that makes you think his religion is notable. But as to why the text you have tried to add to the infobox didn't show up, I just don't know. Good luck! Weakopedia (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a lot more complex that you'd imagine. That particular infobox does not have the 'religion' parameter. I looked at adding it, but then noticed that it had been removed in the past. There are discussions here, here and here. It looks a bit complicated, but if you want, start a fresh discussion on that talk page, and maybe ask some people who commented before to share their thoughts on adding it back.
Personally, I can't imagine why they would object to having such a totally optional parameter.
Sorry I can't help more directly. Chzz ► 09:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Could you please try to reduce the number of external links on that article? There are too many. See WP:EL. For an article this size, normally about 4 or 5 would be acceptable; currently it has almost as many as Obama! Cheers, Chzz ► 09:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the debate about using the religion field for this box I think it especially important that any information about a scientists religion should be both notable and well sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, absolutely. If it is indeed featured in their books though, I think a case could be made. Chzz ► 10:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, if it is notable it should be easy to source, and in that case would probably deserve a mention in the body of the article. Even if it were in the infobox, that wouldn't really tell the reader why religion is important in this case. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Chzz and Weakopedia, Thanks Guys for the info. I can't imagine why someone would want to remove Dr. Farmer's religion from his info box since he is a devout Catholic. I know Tracy Kidder riled against it a bit in the book, but Farmer was even living in a Catholic rectory while a student at Harvard. It's not that he was monk or anything, he's just a deeply spiritual guy. His Catholicism is relevant. I think it should be in the info box and also I should probably add something about it. I will look at those external links. But he might have so many because he's involved in so many organizations. I'll look.Malke2010 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Chzz, I read all those links to the Info Box for Scientists. Farmer isn't a scientist. He's a Physician. Maybe we could give him a new Info Box. How do we do that?Malke2010 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You have new messagesHello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
{{help}}
Can you please tell me how do I add to the info box on this page [22]? I want his religion to show because it's a large part of who he is and is featured prominently in the book about him. Thanks.Malke2010 08:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That article does not mention his religion, so before adding his religion to the infobox you should probably add to the body of the article the information about his religion along with the source that makes you think his religion is notable. But as to why the text you have tried to add to the infobox didn't show up, I just don't know. Good luck! Weakopedia (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a lot more complex that you'd imagine. That particular infobox does not have the 'religion' parameter. I looked at adding it, but then noticed that it had been removed in the past. There are discussions here, here and here. It looks a bit complicated, but if you want, start a fresh discussion on that talk page, and maybe ask some people who commented before to share their thoughts on adding it back.
Personally, I can't imagine why they would object to having such a totally optional parameter.
Sorry I can't help more directly. Chzz ► 09:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Could you please try to reduce the number of external links on that article? There are too many. See WP:EL. For an article this size, normally about 4 or 5 would be acceptable; currently it has almost as many as Obama! Cheers, Chzz ► 09:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the debate about using the religion field for this box I think it especially important that any information about a scientists religion should be both notable and well sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, absolutely. If it is indeed featured in their books though, I think a case could be made. Chzz ► 10:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, if it is notable it should be easy to source, and in that case would probably deserve a mention in the body of the article. Even if it were in the infobox, that wouldn't really tell the reader why religion is important in this case. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Chzz and Weakopedia, Thanks Guys for the info. I can't imagine why someone would want to remove Dr. Farmer's religion from his info box since he is a devout Catholic. I know Tracy Kidder riled against it a bit in the book, but Farmer was even living in a Catholic rectory while a student at Harvard. It's not that he was monk or anything, he's just a deeply spiritual guy. His Catholicism is relevant. I think it should be in the info box and also I should probably add something about it. I will look at those external links. But he might have so many because he's involved in so many organizations. I'll look.Malke2010 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Chzz, I read all those links to the Info Box for Scientists. Farmer isn't a scientist. He's a Physician. Maybe we could give him a new Info Box. How do we do that?Malke2010 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You have new messagesHello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Hello Technically Gifted,
I want to put a new info box on Paul Farmer's page so I can add his religion. The Scientist Infobox does not allow for that. How do I switch in an infobox that does allow for it? Thanks a bunch.Malke2010 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
you would probally have to talk about it on the template's talk page. However, you could use the footnotes to add his religion there Sophie 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What's up? This page doesn't exist.Malke2010 16:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Your message
Do not leave any further messages on my talk page, ever, for any reason. I haven't the least damned interest in your ignorant opinion. What you know of Ireland and Wiki policy could fit in a thimble with enough room left over for your meager brains. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Your message
Do not leave any further messages on my talk page, ever, for any reason. I haven't the least damned interest in your ignorant opinion. What you know of Ireland and Wiki policy could fit in a thimble with enough room left over for your meager brains. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridley Township, Pennsylvania
Bot adding inappropriate and mispelled link.Malke2010 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my bot modify this link [26] because es:Ridley Township have been deleted, and for me the new link es:Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania) is correct, and history, you can see Ridley Township ha sido trasladado a Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania). --Sisyph (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sisyph, thanks for the notice.Malke2010 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridley Township, Pennsylvania
Bot adding inappropriate and mispelled link.Malke2010 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my bot modify this link [27] because es:Ridley Township have been deleted, and for me the new link es:Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania) is correct, and history, you can see Ridley Township ha sido trasladado a Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania). --Sisyph (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sisyph, thanks for the notice.Malke2010 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridley Township, Pennsylvania
Bot adding inappropriate and mispelled link.Malke2010 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my bot modify this link [28] because es:Ridley Township have been deleted, and for me the new link es:Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania) is correct, and history, you can see Ridley Township ha sido trasladado a Municipio de Ridley (Pensilvania). --Sisyph (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sisyph, thanks for the notice.Malke2010 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Emails
WHOA! I've used BETA before but that new bar didn't appear!
Anyways, you weren't answering any emails I sent you, why not? (I only used this as this was the only sure way to contact you) 'The Ninjalemming' 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've answered everyone you've sent thus far. When was the last one? I'll go check right now, but I've not had an email from you at all this week. Malke2010 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Last email from you was 5/5/10. I replied to all.Malke2010 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sexist
Now you're being sexist. DW has told me in the past that that name is their last name, you're being sexist by assuming it's female. I suggest you stop; either ask, or use gender neutral words.— DædαlusContribs 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You just need to cite the book corectly as in a book cite and add cat or content, what exactly is your desired addition and supporting citation? Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rob, thanks for the comments. I want Collins included in the Irish Catholic category and I want to include mention of his Catholicism in the article. I have several citations that include a collection of his letters edited by a prominent Irish historian, several biographies, and another title, Church and Revolution, which speaks specifically to Collins' Catholicism and his role as an Irish Catholic revolutionary.Malke2010 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I would keep it brief, the irish cat is a shoe in with the citation, (books are fine) . why not write something short and simple but well cited for discussion and possible insertion. The Irish catholic cat just needs the citation, which book is it cited to, any the page and what is the supporting comment? Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll write up the sentences for inclusion in the article and post those on the talk page for discussion with the appropriate cites. And for the Cat, I have two good sources with page numbers, one a biography, the other one the Church and Revolution book. Really good chapter there.Malke2010 16:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Good, yes post them there in a new section, perhaps deal with the cat first and post the book cites to support that, yes He clearly was a catholic and keeping him out of the cat seems a bit pointy to me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree. There's no mention at all of his Catholicism in his article, which is odd. I'll get to work on it. Thanks for the help.Malke2010 17:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No hurry no worry, when your ready present your case for inclusion in the cat with the citations on the talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Tea Party movement
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this article. I would welcome your opinion regarding a request to Remove 'Reports of Inappropriate Incidents' Section. Freedom Fan (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree. Let's ding it. It's not accurate and all it does is make trouble.Malke2010 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Since RJ has asked Malke not to leave messages on their talkpage, for RJ to leave a templated message for a regular contributor while disallowing communication on their own talkpage seems like baiting. Weakopedia (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree. And not only that but Gwen Gale has had a personal email relationship with me in the recent past and she is angry at me for other reasons. In addition, in the past when I have brought personal attacks against me to her, she has ignored them saying that an admin is not obligated to act on a complaint. I did not vandalize anything. Republican Jacobite has removed my edits on the Michael Collins talk page. I was asked to show that the Anti-Catholicism existed in the early 20th century and I did that with quotes and links to newspaper articles. This block is entirely inappropriate and stems from Gwen Gale's personal anger and not anything I've done on Wikipedia. She is also aware of the personal attack by Republican Jacobite on me and she did nothing about it.Malke2010 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not block you for vandalism, I blocked you for making another personal attack. I don't support RJ's behaviour either. The block is only about your behaviour. As for your other repeated claims, you are mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I also think this is a poor not needed block, there are issues on both sides of this dispute, User republican Jacabite... left similar templates on my talkpage, luckily I had the experiance to simply remove them and tell him not to continue posting such templates. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he did that to you as well. Here is the diff on the personal attack he left on my talk page. Gwen Gale didn't see anything wrong with it. [37].Malke2010 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition, he's made inappropriate comments in edit summaries, and on the Michael Collins talk page he told me I needed to "get it into your thick head" that I was wrong.Malke2010 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please provide details and diffs of the blocking Admins conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The biggest conflict of interest is that she has had a personal email relationship and she is angry about something else. For diffs on an earlier dispute, I would have to get them from her talk page, around middle of March of this year. I will get you diffs from my talk page now. Please wait.Malke2010 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, you are blocking me for the comments I made to Dayewalker. You called that 'scathing,' yet you ignored Republican Jacobite. If you can come back now and claim I've made another personal attack, can you again excuse Republican Jacobite? Has he been blocked?Malke2010 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I blocked you for this edit summary after having told you many, many times that personal attacks aren't allowed here. I also warned you that there is no bargaining when it comes to PAs and that warnings to other editors may indeed be called for, but you cannot make personal attacks and if you want to edit here, you must stop making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You blocked me for an edit summary on my talk page? You don't consider templating a regular a form of vandalism? What if I'd templated him? Have you seen what Republican Jacobite has left on this talk page and in his edit summaries? They can remove this. It was completely unjustified. If you look at this:[38][39]
So let me understand this: lots of editors write 'removing vandalism' in their edit summaries when they are removing something from their talk page. I believe Republican Jacobite has done the same. What is the special reason I can't do it, but he can?Malke2010 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't vandalism. Calling it vandalism was a personal attack. If other editors have reverted non-vandalistic posts from their talk pages, they've strayed from policy. You cannot cite strays from policy by other editors as support for your own breaches of policy. As I've also said, there is nothing to bargain about, I don't support RJ's behaviour in this and a warning to RJ may be called for. However, please understand, this block has nothing to do with RJ, it has only to do with the need that you stop making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering this edit summary by RJ, I think that his templated message of Malke may not be vandalism, but was probably close. Either way, I think that RJ is obviously capable of expressing his opinion, and was actively baiting, and blocking Malke for a borderline disagreement on their talkpage was probably avoidable. Weakopedia (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
RJ may need dealing with too. However, there is nothing to bargain over here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't come to bargain, just to state my opinion. On reflection, RJ removed Malkes comments from the MC talkpage, and then left a template message about it here, in spite of other possibly less antagonistic approaches - I think that was vandalism, or near enough to mean that Malkes choice of words in this onteration with RJ in no way constitute a personal attack and are not blockable. Weakopedia (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think you were trying to bargain at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, RJs templated message reads, in part, The talk page exists only for the purpose of discussing article improvements, not as a sounding board for theories, rants, original research, paranoid ramblings, etc., so maybe Malke should have used the rationale 'personal attack' instead of 'vandalism', due to the 'paranoid ramblings' accusation, but either way Malke meant the same thing and I think your block was hasty. Weakopedia (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
But this edit summary is all right, [46] and twinkle was used, inappropriately. This is a simple request for Republican Jacobite to stop reverting my edits. He was vandalizing my talk page, again, and he was vandalzing my legitimate edits on the Michael Collins' talk page. But that's all right? I write in an edit summary what is legitimately the removal of vandalism and I'm blocked?Malke2010 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the edit summary for which I blocked you, it's not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that edit summary is not ok. I didn't say it was. I also said that warnings to other editors may be called for. Meanwhile, you must stop making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, please take care not to say anything that can be seen as further disruption. Please be aware that vandalism is something else and a specific thing on wikipedia, for exampel if someone was annoyingly adding templates to your talkpage and you thought they were wrong, they may well be but it is not vandalism to do it , it is something else, warring, battlefield mentality or so on, but not vandalism. You should read and understand that and you may then have a request for unblocking, you first need to understand the reason for your block, Wikipedia:vandalism You also have only 24 hours and you should consider your own personal respect, accept it and learn and keep away from them and look to articles where you can enjoy your experience here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
To clarify again, I didn't block Malke for vandalism, but for a personal attack, in calling something vandalism which was not. It's true Malke, that if you acknowledge the personal attack and agree to not make personal attacks any more, it is highly likely that you'll be unblocked, by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia is exactly correct. The edit summaries by Republican Jacobite and the templating of my talk page were seen by me as personal attacks. And I wrote "removing vandalism" because that's what he'd been writing in his edit summaries when he removed my edits on his talk page, which, by the way, were not personal attacks.Malke2010 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I will say it again, RJs templated message reads The talk page exists only for the purpose of discussing article improvements, not as a sounding board for .... paranoid ramblings, which if not vandalism is a personal attack. I don't think Malke should be penalized for mixing the two up in an edit summary. Weakopedia (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Paranoid ramblings? Do you agree that is another personal attack?Malke2010 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, you have been unblocked, which is worthy of thanks and please use the advice and issue to learn and understand your failings. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I second that, I am glad this block has been lifted, but this could have all been avoided by just using neutral wording. Gwen is right that, quite apart from the quality of editing, the quality of dialogue needs to improve all round. Weakopedia (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Weak, I didn't post personal attacks to Republican Jacobite. All he got was a warning. She has no intention of doing anything to him. This has nothing to do with him. Malke2010 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, in reading your posts after the block, I believe you still misunderstand the personal attacks policy and made a mistake, rather than a willful attack, so I'm unblocking you. No matter what the disagreement, or what other editors may have said to you, you cannot answer with personal attacks on other editors or call their edits vandalism, which has a very narrow meaning here. If you need help keeping within the bounds of NPA, please ask an experiernced editor, an admin, or me. Meanwhile, stay away from User:RepublicanJacobite's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A few of those are personal attacks and as you know, I've also warned RJ to stop making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
They are all personal attacks. Everyone. You must have missed the one where I should "get it through your thick head."Malke2010 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, which group is it that want Collins not to be a Catholic?, excuse me, I can see there is some problem about it but I just don't totally get it. Is it the protestant irish nationalists? (was there such a thing) why would anyone want to deny his religion? If you know why anyone from ireland would dislike Collins being a catholic please explain. Anti catholics? Which religion/group are they? Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rob, my guess would be editors who sympathize with the British position. Collins is something of a hero to the British and the Protestant right wingers in Ireland (and are remnants of the former Protestant ruling class) since he signed the treaty to end the Irish War of Independence that created the Irish Free State. Sinn Fein and the IRA, the left wingers and Catholic, were against it and viewed Collins as a traitor. The Civil War resulted. The IRA assassinated him. The treaty allowed the British to still subjugate the Irish. Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were ecstatic. Eamon de Valera and Sinn Fein were not. They wanted a Republic and to be rid of the British entirely. The British and the Irish Protestants are still big Collins' fans. Downplaying his Catholicism, in fact virtually eliminating the religious aspects of the conflict, is something the British do. It's PR. Malke2010 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation Malke. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the IRA assassinated Collins is a very controversial one. There are others, many of them republicans, who still believe he was killed by a British agent because he showed too much potential as a leader for the Free State; and that Unionist "admiration" for him is just part of the propaganda coverup. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't afford to work at bookstore wages full time; I have a union job during the week so I can work part-time with books on weekends. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Move
I never have but it looks pretty simple from the instructions. It looks like there are only a handful of double redirects which is easy to fix. "Pennsylvania Main Line" will be a redirect so the pages currently linking to it don't have to be immediately changed. There might even be a bot or script for those. It appears to be the way to go so let me know if you want me to try it.Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, try it.Malke2010 02:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, this is the page with the instructions for renaming/moving. [63]Malke2010 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Edward Norton
If the source is reliable and a bit of content to explain what it is is available, it certainly can go it. I'd put it in the Personal life section after the paragraph about the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/marchofdimes/21513/images/21513f.jpg){kind=link}
