This user may have left Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? has not edited Wikipedia since December 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hello, Who then was a gentleman?. You have new messages at TheFeds's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Who then was a gentleman?. You have new messages at ChinaUpdater's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You changed one of his revisions for Kabul province but he undid your revision as well. I don't really know who the administrator is, but if you are one of the admins, please do something about that use. (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Is there an administrator/moderator whom we can get in touch with? If you are one than take a look at this
In the past, you have raised a concern about my talk page "wizard" system. I have changed this to an FAQ-based system (User talk:Stifle/FAQs), and would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Stifle/FAQs/feedback or elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that all of them are, technically, alive (cue some sort of bad politician joke here). But I'm erring on the side of caution and tagging them from now on as you suggested. I believe Blofeld has spoken to Rjwilmsi about coming around and sprucing them all up once they're created - his AWBing skills are far superior to mine. --User:AlbertHerringIo son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
That's twice in 2 days that User:Iqinn has replaced a section with his own complaint about something. I told him, and you added your comment later, so hopefully he'll get the hint. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He says he'll do better in future, but I'm not so sure he understands what he did. I'm not sure I understand it either. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 05:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, the "edit conflict" part doesn't make sense. If he does it a third time, someone have to 'splain it to him. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 11:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have guessed, ethnic numbers are a huge issue in contemporary Afghanistan. I have gone through the source by searching for all instances of the word Tajik and there is nothing I saw that states Tajiks are the largest ethnic group. Between the two sources, the one that supports Pashtuns as the majority ethnic group (the government of Afghanistan) and Tajiks as the majority ethnic group (Naval Postgraduate School), I find the government of Afghanistan to be a more WP:reliable source, but you know, you will find editors who disagree. The Government of North Korea for example, is rarely if ever a valid source. But, since the only thing actually found in the source is the population number, we can go ahead and revert. --Afghana[talk] 06:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can lock the article from edits by IPs and new users. --Afghana[talk] 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not one of those issues that will go away if nothing is done about it. Since you seem to be on top of the issue perhaps we should go ahead and take it to where it needs to go. --Afghana[talk] 05:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went to history to rollback myself when the new messages banner pulled up.
That said: I stand by my statement. He claims to be a professional, and all I'm doing is suggest the quality of professional work be improved. :P --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entry is about Schonborn's book ... it is quite popular. I think it deserves to exist for the same reason that we already have a separate entry on From Darwin to Hitler. I essentially wanted to add additional information about Schonborn's views outside of the topic of evolution and I found that that his biographical entry was filled with extra information about this book. He has done much more than publish these writings you know. ADM (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give more explanation why Who was then a gentleman (quoting John Ball 14th century) thinks that way. Have not been doing vandalism here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to content were valid: only edit summary was garbage since I stopped typing.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted one of the alumni you deleted in this article, and wanted to explain why.
Per WP:ATHLETE, athletes who have actually competed in the Olympics are generally considered to have reached minimal notability for article status. While this is not a question of starting an article, the Wikiproject school guidelines generally state that an alum may be included if the alum meets the requiements of notability in an article (provided that a reliable source confirms they are an alum).
If there is something I have misinterpreted or am just plain wrong about, please let me know at your convenience so that I may correct it. Have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my response seemed snippy. I'm using HG so my warnings are auto generated. That's the direct answer to your question. I'm watching recent changes and looking for blatant vandalism. That doesn't involve a lot of research into the "editor's" contribs and behavior. If you think that such in-depth research is important, I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards Tiderolls 03:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no intention to be crabbish; it was late-ish and I was tired. It's there now. Ham 11:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)[edit]
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why did you AfD that article? I felt it was more deserving of a speedy deletion as either gibberish or hoax. I was in the middle of googling it to see if it was bs or not. I dont think we should spend a week debating that article.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I couldnt find anything really on google other than your link. I would have tried having it speedy deleted as gibberish. If that didn't work, I suppose PROD or AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger. Hey, since we're talking about it, check out this website and put your mouse over "Sinus Research Links" on the left.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a bio page of rock concert promoter Pat DiCesare that is very well cited. I would like to know if you think that it looks good. I would like to move it to its own "Pat DiCesare" page when its ready. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shermanfolks (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified you as I saw that you had done some editing on this article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about a psychologist in the same section in which you complain about my politely worded inquiry are fantastic. Please update the complaint to include the edit summaries he has left and the rant on my talkpage. Also feel free to report yourself. Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not know to what you refer. Please refrain from any contact with me. If you decide to open another ANI, please allow someone else to notify me or request that they do. I have not lodged a formal complaint against you for your behaviour, nor draw much attention to it, but it would appear that the filing of the ANI was in bad faith, considering the abuse you have repeated heaped on me contemporaneously. I usual seek sanctions only on the most egregious offenders. You are beneath my contempt and unworthy of any further dignifying. Please move on and find something more constructive to do. If questions on Marxism make you so butt-sore, please quit reading the stale comments. It almost seems like masochistic behaviour. Perhaps you need to have the consult that you have repeatedly suggested I have.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - please be patient, I just created this article a few minutes ago and I have my draft ready. Also, I don't think WP:BLP can apply here. Shiva(Visnu) 04:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a note on that editor's page advising him to stop. He may honestly think he's asking appropriate questions, but I told him that engaging in political debates is not the purpose of the reference desk. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 07:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I laid it on the line. I stopped short of saying "...or you'll be blocked", because that seemed a little too confrontational... at the moment. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 08:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Who then was a gentleman?! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Category:Skitzo Metal albums- because: A7 only applies to articles, so not category pages. See WP:What is an article? If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, what is the issue? OOODDD (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an administrator? Or are friendly with one? I'd appreciate some help. OOODDD (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your apparent help. OOODDD (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wabigama, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wabigama. Thank you.
Out of curiosity, why the tag at the end of the plot summary? It's an accurate recounting of the plot, but yes, probably based from reading the book. What's protocol for that? Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; I'll try to do something with it when I have time. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Just seems like a shame to me. We are a non-profit organization afterall. Never mind, anyway. Jacob Richardson (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through refs given before tagging content for ref and removing content[1]. Especially "current events" keep changing, so you should give time to update refs, dont be in a hurry. And if you help with adding ref it will be appreciated. Doorvery far (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced your fact tags with refs. And you tagged unnecessarily see the diff i gave above. Also avoid calling others vandals. Regards, Doorvery far (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Who then was a gentleman, when you revert an edit to a userpage that is obviously not vandalism but a good faith attempt to communicate which has been inadvertently posted to the userpage in error instead of the user talk, as you did here, please consider copying the message to the talk page for the user. In this case we have a person who is not experienced with Wikipedia and who is an unhappy BLP subject feeling alienated and struggling to figure Wikipedia out and it would be a shame to see such a person even further disaffected because they inadvertently posted their request for help to a userpage instead of a talk page and received no response because it was reverted rather than moved to the correct place. Just a suggestion. Regards, Sarah 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He ws a ranting individual, I didn't feel that needed to be on a User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? "He" wasn't a ranting individual but a blp subject who was trying to ask for help and advice regarding her biography. Of course it didn't need to be on the userpage - she obviously placed it there by mistake as she's not a Wikipedian and doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and was trying to ask for help from someone who had gone out of his way to help her a couple of years ago. Sarah 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you felt that was a ranting post. Did you actually read what she wrote before reverting her? "Dear Alan, You were once very helpful to me with some entries I made, back in 2006. Might you be available to help again? Kind regards Barbara Biggs". That's not a rant, but a BLP subject asking for help and advice from someone who had previously shown her some kindness and inadvertently posting it to his userpage instead of his user talk because she's not a Wikipedian and not familiar with this website. I thought when I left the above post that you had made a mistake in reverting rather than moving and perhaps just needed a prompt but your reply seems to reveal a very bitey failure to AGF of people who don't understand Wikipedia. Sarah 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JACOB FAUST was a beloved musician, artist, performer, ETC and mostly, an invaluable friend. To harm Jacob Faust by removing FAUSTBOOK from Wikipedia is simply atrocious - if you want notability, how's this for starters: the San Diego CityBeat ran a front-cover article and follow-up articles on Jacob's untimely death at the hands of the San Diego Police Department, who has since lost a court case over Jacob's innocence. The entire city of San Diego, California (and abroad) knew about this murder from watching every news channel, reading about it in the San Diego Union Tribune and virtually every other printed and online source. While not everything always makes it to Wiki-deemed respectable websites, you can read about his death in CityBeat here (and many other places): http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=3147 and the Tribune here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050405/news_1m5fake.html
To rob Jacob of the film he spent over 5 years making, and of which is distributed internationally by Vanguard Cinema (go ahead and call Freyr Thor, the president and CEO, if you want proof) is both cruel and heartless. "Faustbook" should never be deleted. It is already atrocious that Jacob's Wiki page wasn't excepted in the first place. Shame on you editors who decided that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.128.95 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see user_talk:Ejamlap#Prime_Integration. They used a 'helpme', but I think that their intention was just to respond to your query, so I cancelled out the 'helpme' template. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not threatening sanctions because he disagreed with my opinion or the opinion of the clear consensus in the discussion. Disagreeing is one thing, but engaging in blatant violations of "no personal attacks" and "BLP" is quite another matter. The former in no way requires the latter. --Vassyana (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A block or sanction would be preventative, not punitive, unless the editor in question agreed to refrain from such comments. The BLP violation is blatant. If those comments were added to the mainspace article, they would be reverted and would likely spur warnings about heeding the BLP policy. BLP applies across all namespaces. What is a BLP vio in mainspace is still a BLP vio if expressed on a talk page or Wikipedia: space noticeboard. --Vassyana (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it would be a quick AfD, there was a discussion (may still be up) at WT:CSD regarding these kind of articles (i.e. neos/dic-defs). IMO, db-g2 would not be appropriate, as it is clearly a good faith edit by a new user, to add to Wikipedia. It's not testing out the functionality of Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for supporting my deletion proposal :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who then, given this edit, would you be willing to see this speedily kept? Unschool 00:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Who then was a gentleman?. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, you may have recently encountered some problems from the Edit Filter; a regex in one of the filters I wrote was not working properly, and inadvertently tagged several of your edits as vandalism. It may have also removed your autoconfirmed status. I wanted to let you know that the filter has been disabled, and all actions taken by the filter should have been reverted. If you are still experiencing difficulty editing, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks, and I'm very sorry for the mixup. Hersfold(t/a/c) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand - I thought I'd tested the filter well, but obviously I hadn't. I am working on improving the filter now, and when it is reenabled (if I'm confident it won't mess up again), it will not have any advanced actions enabled. Hersfold(t/a/c) 19:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should have been - I reverted all the actions the filter took since I added the bad regex. If not, I can always give you the confirmed flag manually. Hersfold(t/a/c) 19:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your comment here to UG, I found some irony in the way you worded this. Just as there is no need to attack good-faith reporters there's also no need to attack good-faith editors. In this case, I do not think the reporting was done in good faith as it was initiated by simply tagging ALL redirects (many which were rejected and obviously useful, showing no personal review of). It's my belief that after I complained about this, Ryulong did improve by looking at them first. Even so, the case is that all are still being tagged with a lack of detail as to the objection. When implausibility is argued it makes sense to allow someone an opportunity to explain what they thought was plausible at the time of creation, since different people notice different connections. I offered to go through this process with him and the other editors, so I would say UG was simply pointing out the nastiness of the report in the first place. Tyciol (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I mistook you for somebody else. Please accept my apologies. I should have assumed good faith. Concerning my edit: the official language of Flanders is Dutch, not Flemish. See it like "American" and "English". That explains why I changed it. --Roofbird (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please just check other articles such as Belgium or Dutch language; you will see that the official language of Flanders is Dutch, not "Flemish". Please do so instead of relying on your niece only. --Roofbird (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm on a crusade and you blindly follow your niece. Did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong? Just look around a little bit (as I asked you too), and I promise you'll immediately know the official language of northern Belgium is Dutch. By the way; you changed Dutch to Flemish. That means you should come up with a reliable reference (state, university...) that claims that "Flemish" is an official language (not me for proving your edit doesn't make sense). If I'm on a "crusade", it is to correct mistakes you (bad faith) or others (mostly with good faith) have made in the past. --Roofbird (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was just adding back in ACORNS response and would be just as happy with that section removed entirely.Mystylplx (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove the tag, I just moved it to the top of the article where it belongs. GlassCobra 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That notwithstanding, the whole article could really use better sourcing. If you feel strongly about that particular section though, you might try {{unreferenced section}} or a similar tag instead. GlassCobra 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Did you address this comment to me, or to Mario? I think I can guess the answer, but it's admittedly a bit ambiguous. Dahn (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Dahn (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N5iln has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
His contributions caused disruption to the project. While I personally dont object to humor, Wikipedia is not the place for it. I'm sure you understand. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think a ANI discussion, RD discussion of those lengths seems to be an indicator of a problem. Also consider that several editors agreed that his edits were inappropriate, not to a level worth censure, but certainly worthy of warning. Place yourself in the place of a new contributor, who is pointed to the help desk. The first answer they get is one that appears to be sarcastic in nature. What will they think about the project? Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Adrenalin (band), it seems that there are 2 by this name, Adrenalin (American band) and Adrenalin (Turkish band). Adrenalin (band) orginally was the article for the American band, but it was moved because there is a second one. Both are referred to on Adrenalin (disambiguation), so it seems appropriate that it should redirect there. I do not wish to engage in edit warring, but would like your opinion on the matter.
Why are you taking away the article and simply redirecting to a list? I don't understand. I cannot see in what way it is failing to meet the article requirements. There are links and attributes aplenty. Please see my talk page for more information!
Gjulp (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed have some alumni of note- is an olympic medalist enough to matter? How about partnership with the Oakland Raiders, who donated $500.00 per touchdown last year? There are quite a few things that I could write, but was waiting for others to note the existance of the page so they could add it themselves. Would the addition of the olympic medalist be enough for me to resurrect it? I am wary of so doing now.
I understand enough not to continue the 'comparison' argument, but I still believe without question that the Emerson page, even without addition, is far superior to other elementary pages which exist.
Thanks!
Gjulp (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway to de-transluciate the ANI? I don't need it any more, because an admin has unblocked me. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you take it straight to AfD, regardless of the usual procedures in situations like this. Just my opinion.--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird! 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users like Einstein0202 (talk·contribs) can usually just be reported as a vandalism only account. I've had success that way most of the time and it's a lot faster than opening an incident report. Eeekster (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we EC'd on the guy writing articles of random book lists. I userfy'd them just as you were CSD and AfDing them. Do you want to do through with the deletion processes, undo the moves, or just remove the redirects and leave the userfied info? Best, --Bfigura(talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're already userfied, and I left a note about not creating random lists, so if you can remove the redirects, that'd be stellar. (I'm not an admin, so the most I can do is flag it as a G2 or R3). Best, --Bfigura(talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack. It is a commonly given nickname to the new Cowboys Stadium. See Jerry_WorldIksnyrk (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your responsibility to concern yourself with "the good of Germany". If an official of the German government wants to contact an official of Wikipedia and asks them to take down information they find not in their best interests, they can do so. In the meantime, your actions are vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not see why someone on Wikipedia should or should not tell me what I can and I can not do for my country Germany. I do not tell you what you can or can not do about your country so please don't tell me what I can and can not do. It is not vandalism when you are defending your country. If you like to chat some more about this different point of view, please contact me on my wikipedia page. THanks for your time and have a great day.
You go to a lot of people pages. You say, "Well this will be block, delete, and etc." Then you and that person get in a pissing fighting. Your kind of people helped ruine Wikipedia. If you keep your hands out of everyone business, maybe everyone would like to come up with better work if they did not have to worry about getting it delete by you. I have record all your information. The next time you threated me, I am going to the head of Wikipedia to have you block period.
I'm aware but I though he wasn't because of the banner at the top (mistook it for the "lots of vandalism from this address, can be blocked for a longer period of time etc. etc"-one) and the blocked-template from this August. Note I also gave him a more personal message explaining it. Cheers, --aktsu(t / c) 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Who then was a gentleman?. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page. Message added 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Who then was a gentleman?. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's a minor detail, but the final warning and AIAV report were both made at 01:40 The next edit was not until a minute or two after I looked at the contribs and noted that I would monitor the user. Thank you for taking action. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your note. As you may not be aware, as per WikiProject Aircraft all aircraft manufacturers who have designs flying are inherently notable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) for more details. In the case of this company they have thousands of aircraft in the air and are as notable as Cessna or Boeing in that regard. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want challenge the general notability of aircraft manufacturers I would suggest the best place for that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. You may want to have a read through the archives first, however as this is an old discussion that has come up before, including the applicability of WikiProjects setting there own guidelines for notability. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the link. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLP. You may not make unsourced claims about any living person, anywhere on Wikipedia. I have removed your comments on my Talk page, as they violate that policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new at editing. Are you referring to your talk page neededing sources, which I failed to put in.
If not, how does WarriorBoy get away with being a single puropose editor? The only sources he cites are his own web site, but the sources I put in are Los Angeles Times, Other Major Newspapers, Federal Court Papers, etc.
Each time he deletes everything I write, I add more sources, but there is a point at which the sources are becoming a bigger part of my edit than the few sentences I started out with.
All of the information I have put in is from Standard Newspapers. What do I do about the Threat that WarriorBoy has contacted his legal team at Allied Artists International? Why is he allowed to edit his own company? I would not care except that it seems that something is very wrong here, especially with what I read, and he seems to have only the interest in making people think his company is the classical film company, as you can tell by his dominating the disambiguation pagfe withtout so much as a link to the classic movie company page. ChinaUpdater (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove all of the reliable sources information on Kimball Dean Richards, such as the Los Angeles Times article on him and Allied Artists in one swoop? Did you check any of the sources? ChinaUpdater (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have been threatened with a lawsuit if I edit, I am afraid to undo your massive wiping out of all of my work. Can I still edit?ChinaUpdater (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Assistance: How to make Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods[edit]
Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods
I have seen enough, as of this, - [4] –, which when coupled with the massive other edits by WarriorBoy85, all overtly NN ADVERTs, all NRS, and all COI and POV, to make the following accusations.
I accuse WP:WarriorBoy85 and WP:TechnicalExpertise of being Sockpuppets for Kimball Dean Richards. I dont care about his overt legal threats, or his history of Solicitation for Murder here [5].
Kim Richards, CEO of Allied Artists International, by WarriorBoy85’s own original edit of his side bar, is one and the same as Kimball Dean Richards, who was named, indicted, and convicted of Major Fraud using these names and associated names.
ALL of the HUNDREDS of Wikipedia entries are nothing more than ADVERTising for Allied Artists International and its "artists" should be deleted on NN, and NRS, COI, POV, as well as SP.
All of the HUNDREDS of entries, such as “artists” web sites, and redirects, done by WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpert should be undone by high ranking Admins, and let the rest of us low level folks get back to our far more simple editing work.ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted in the source from where I draw up the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallopingmajor (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can db these unsourced sub-stubs about non-notable people as you encounter them? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he is following the pattern in List of veterans of World War I who died in 2006 and other related article's. I have to say i'm not particularly adverse to them being created - at least a few have a decent claim to notability as "The last veteran for side X in the war". They also do not count as BLP article's as their subjects deceased so removing them as such won't do. While it is rather unusual, the article's are actually mostly sourced. The problem is that their sources are located in the parent document from which they are derived - if anything they should be moved to the small articles.
If anything, i don't think these should go trough CSD. Perhaps a class AFD could be considered, but seeing most actually have a source (Which is unusual enough as is for stubs), including a notability claim, i wonder if it is really worth the hassle. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those with tenuous claims of notability, I have not deleted, though I have tagged them as unsourced, but just having served in WWI does not make you notable, and I'm tagging all of those I find. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i honestly don't mind seeing them removed, as your right that being a veteran is nothing encyclopedic on its own. But having been chided by DGG for tagging this article a minute after creation so it has a chance to be improved, i assume im much more lenient \ inclusionist with my tags. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussions in June at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Field I had the film userfied to me. At that point it had not yet been released, but editors at the AfD granted that the film might gain notability once it had finally been released. Well... it has finally been released and is getting some decent coverage: Real West, The Province, Northern Stars, Uptown, eFilm Critic... among others. So, I have done some additional work to the article and wish your blessing to return it to mainspace. Please review it at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Black Field and advise. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was correcting vandalism, and i am sorry for the problem. Please forgive me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where was he banned? Where was the community discussion outlining the supports of various people who agree that this user should be banned? I can't find it, can you point me in the right direction?— DædαlusContribs 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a ban discussion. The result of the discussion was to indef-block the user. Nowhere was a ban proposed, nowhere was a ban discussed.— DædαlusContribs 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. There was no ban discussed, and therefore there is no ban. The user is indef blocked. If you are under the impression that all indef blocked users are banned, then why don't you go alter all uses of {{indef}}.— DædαlusContribs 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your recent edits, namely this odd post. I have a feeling that your account has been compromised. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus, bogus, bogus. As I expected. The Protected Ones keep getting protected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This block clearly has nothing to do with civility and has all to do with politics. I'll be the first one to say I told you so when the real disruptive editors finally wind up getting booted.
Decline reason:
No reason to unblock offered. Threats to continue to be disruptive don't count, for obvious reasons. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bogus refusal to unblock as you are biased against me from the get-go. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, I do not plan on keeping quiet about the way that admins throw blocks around willy nilly to people who don't deserve them but piss in their pants at the thought of blocking those who really should be blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the log of who I've blocked recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baiting and taunting behaviours are a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. The "ha ha ha" posts here and here, and your responses when challenged about them here, here, here, and here did nothing to clarify that you understand the issue or are going to cease the abusive behavior.
The particular comment you made a couple of days ago that provoked this round, here yesterday on ANI, referring to CoM, Malleus, and Giano as abusive drama-mongerers, was an inappropriate personal attack as well.
Even given a presumption that the warnings that CoM and Malleus made on your page were poorly done and in bad taste, they were responding to a legitimate grievance. They were not in bad faith. Your behavior in the diff from yesterday on ANI was drama inducing and escalation of the incident rather than a calm discussion of it or an effort to constructively resolve it.
We cannot have editors ganging up on each other in cliques and throwing abuse and expletives around. We expect all editors to behave like adults and treat each other with respect and dignity, even if we disagree greatly.
We cannot have editors ganging up on each other in cliques and throwing abuse and expletives around You mean like DoM, Giano and Malleus do? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that Malleus had been blocked, believe me I'm shocked, but it doesn't matter, my comments were not taunts, they were the only proper response to the ridiculous comments left on my Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got ridiculous comments on my talk page too. I discussed them on ANI in a calm and constructive manner (I hope).
Your comments were not "the only proper response" - they were an improper response. That's entirely the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::ANI is a joke, since the admins are too afraid to
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]
I noticed that you added the selfpublished template to the getopt article. I'm confused why you did so. All of the references used are to the documentation for the standard libraries of the programming languages involved. If you don't have any objects, I would like to remove the tag. - Pingveno 07:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posted this tag into the MacBinary article. I've never seen it before. Can you explain what this means and what caused you to post it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you were wrong to delete Diahn williams. Acting in the Andy Griffin show and kissing Don Knotts makes her a notable person.Georgeghodgesiii (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Allied Artists (disambiguation). Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
