This 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.
User:Allstarecho/fol, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/fol and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Allstarecho/fol during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Rrburke(talk) 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Ole Miss page.
Your source regarding the probation/suspension standing of Greek fraternal organizations at the University of Mississippi, and the subsequent information listed on the Ole Miss page, is irresponsible. The Wikipedia page is not the proper forum to promote your anti-Greek agenda. The section on the page designated for Greek organizations is properly used for recording the founding and establishment dates of said organizations and chapter inactivity, where necessary. The temporary standing of organizations cited currently is an abuse of your authority as the page's editor. The fact of the matter is that all three organizations are still fully active on the campus. Also, the original descriptions you listed for Beta Theta Pi and Kappa Alpha Order were blatantly incorrect, and were subsequently corrected for accuracy. Perhaps instead of threatening users with edit bans, you should reconsider what is regarded as proper and necessary information and a what is an obvious use of unnecessary, biased disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalBlackcode (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How can you call the news media as irresponsible? It's sourced news by a news media outlet. It stands. Further, regarding the original descriptions, I left the corrections. -- ALLSTARECHO 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Superstition
Do you believe or not believe in superstition? Please leave an answer at my talk page. Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How do I go about withdrawing an AfD nomination? I want to withdraw the Austin Lonestars and related pages pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_15#Malm.C3.B6_Devilants. I can't find any reading on withdrawing. Is it as simple as removing the tags and me saying because of my own withdrawal? Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Since others have participated in the AfD to the point where your withdrawing the AfD would be inconsistent with their position, you cannot withdraw the AfD. If you change your opinion from that posted in the nomination, you can note that in the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative linke. I had googled it and saw that site, but its navigation was a bit convoluted and ran out of time before I found the page. dm —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Production
Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild isn't in production. IMDb says the status is "Announced", as opposed to You Don't Mess with the Zohan, which says the status is "Filming". Production means to actually be filming, and not to be in development or preproduction, as projects have a higher chance of stalling in these stages. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But the article is already tagged with {{future film}} showing
{{future film}}
and this supports its inclusion and current status of an article on a film not yet released. -- ALLSTARECHO 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The {{future film}} template can be added or removed by anyone, so its placement is like citing one part of Wikipedia to back another part of Wikipedia. The notability guidelines for films says that a film should be in production to warrant its own article. This is because in the film industry, projects are likely to stall before they enter production. When a film does enter production, it's nearly certain to be completed and thus released, warranting information worthy of a film article -- plot, production, cast, box office performance, critical reaction, controversies, societal impact, etc. If the film enters production, the article can be recreated without a problem. Otherwise, we'd have perpetual stubs of rumors and a dearth of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So by your analogy, only the few that are actually in production of the 1475 articles with the future film tag should be kept? 1475 films have this tag: Category:Upcoming films and you want to get rid of approximately 1400 of them? -- ALLSTARECHO 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the figure of 1400. There's definitely more than 75 films that are in production -- these are genuine upcoming films. Something like Tron rumored sequel (film) is definitely not certain to be a film anytime soon. Here's my idea: There's a concept called WP:USERFY in which you can place an article on your userspace until the film enters production. For example, I created Nottingham (film) too early, and to adhere to the guidelines, I moved it to User:Erik/Nottingham (film). I've read that the impending 2008 Hollywood strike may cancel Nottingham, but if it doesn't and the film enters production, I'll recreate the article. There are upcoming projects on Wikipedia that need to adhere to the notability guidelines because people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and create an article when they hear of the announcement of a project. (That's what happened with me and Nottingham.) The fact is, the film industry is not very orderly. Spider-Man 4, Jurassic Park IV, Logan's Run (2010 film), and The Hobbit (2009 film) still have not entered production, so they've been redirected/merged to broader articles. I don't know if you could do that for this film, if there's a name for the "Not Another ________ Movie" franchise. My suggestion is to userfy the film article, and you can restore it if it enters production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want it userfied. I didn't create the article. To be honest, I don't care and agree the info could go in the first movie (this is a sequel) at Another Gay Movie but based on the fact that there is 1475 more articles with the future film tag, I don't see the point. And how I got that number is by going to Category:Upcoming films, which is where film titles are put that have the future film tag, and counting at 200 films per page. It came to 1475 that have the future film tag and I'm guessing that at most, 75 to 100 of those are in actual production. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just went through all the # and A future film articles, and there were not even a half dozen articles that weren't in production (from looking at the status of each film on IMDb). I think for the most part, the upcoming film articles are OK. From what I can tell, the popular ones tend to be created right off the bat because they have built-in fanbases. (I edit a few superhero films, so I've seen this a lot.) Would you want to merge the sequel to the first film's article, or should I? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You can merge it. As I said, I didn't create it. I just think it's pointless to worry about it considering the vast amount of others with the same future film tag. This would require an AfD I assume? -- ALLSTARECHO 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, WP:AFD would remove the page history and the article's presence from the mainspace. WP:RM is the official request to merge, in which content is moved and the article becomes a redirect to the content. It's not necessary in this case, though; all that's needed to be done is be bold and do the job oneself, especially considering the low traffic of this film article not even in production. I did this with Knight Rider (film), moving the content to the source material's article and making the film article into a redirect. If Knight Rider ever enters production, the redirect can be undone and the article recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Have at it. -- ALLSTARECHO 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - you wrote: First you say there would be scope for a mississippi-tv-stub then you nom it for deletion when I create it in preparation for deletion of the mississippi-media-stub. What gives?
Well, firstly it was just my opinion, it wasn't an endorsement that such a stub should exist (though I don't think there'd be much objection) - the main problem, though is that I said that Mississippi-tv-station-stub would probably be OK, but you created it at Mississippi-television-station-stub. So if kept it needs a rename to the standardised name as used for other television-related stubs (all of which have "tv"). So it's more a case of "rename and lose the redirect" than "delete outright". Grutness...wha? 01:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your Unauthorized Edits and violation of the 3R Rule
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The interview with the documentarian ALREADY cited in the article stipulates that Frisbee was RAPED. Please try to check your bias at the door.
The piece you claim was 'blanked' was edited in accordance with the STANDARD that you established. NO 3rd party I think this is true. Provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE of him partying on Sat night or keep this UNSOURCED information out of the article. Thank you71.238.68.127 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you once and edited the article twice. There is a difference. -- ALLSTARECHO 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Answer to your question
You legitimately asked: "Do you have source/proof that David di Sabatino said that other than a third-party (James) saying he said it?"
Yes. See the article.
I'd like a formal apology please. Thank you.
Especially since this affirmation was in the VERY INTERVIEW cited by Wik later in the article. 71.238.68.127 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I owe you nothing. You used a source that was a copy of the original Wikipedia article from 2004. You can't use an old copy of Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia to justify your personal point of view. Duh. -- ALLSTARECHO 06:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong?
I used a quote from the Documentarian and the VERY interview
already referenced in the article.
Nice try scrubbing the article to advance YOUR POV. Too bad, I'm not duh, huh?
Anyway, It's Pathetic that you just can't admit you're wrong. It's a character flaw, you know?
On another note, sorry about the references. I'll try and learn the right way to cite. The last thing I want is to have you behind me doing anything given your inability to admit when you're wrong.
Finally, I'm watching this video of Lonnie a few years before he died. Man does he seem gay...
I just admitted I might have been wrong about him.
See how easy it is?
71.238.68.127 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Mississippi-tv-station-stub
Oops! Apologies for that; fixed. (For the record, not watching this page.) Alai 06:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, but if you look at the PDF you'll find the next image says that picture is courtesy of an organization other than the NPS, so the NPS does not have the copyright. I think the picture after that has an image credit which specificially says it is an NPS image. It's not obvious, but the credit image follows the picture it is crediting. The last picture does not have a credit (it is probably NPS, but that's not a good image of the whole boat anyway). I suggest you upload a different image under a different name and submit this copyvio image for deletion. (SEWilco 04:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Allstarecho! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Allstarecho! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops!
Oops sorry about that I guess I missed it. Shouldn't there be a little note in the personality section? Kevin 21:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that but I mean later on there probably should be a note there. Kevin 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dumbledore
Hi, I notice in the Albus Dumbledore article you've been removing any writing about his sexuality in addition to what's already in the section "Gellert and Grindelwald". However, I don't think it would hurt to mention it more than once in the article, as it is pretty important; not everyone will read the article the whole way through, and talking about it in other sections, especially the "Personality" section, would probably be a good idea. I think this edit by User:IamMcLovin puts it rather well, so I'm restoring that. Please respond on my talk page if you disagree. Cheers, -- BlastOButter42SeeHearSpeak 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
On User talk:BlastOButter42, Allstarecho said: I think it's redundant to have it on there more than once. The news surrounds Dumbledore and Grindelwald so it either needs to stay there or be removed from there and put under Personality but not both. -- ALLSTARECHO 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at least seven people seem to disagree with you. -- BlastOButter42SeeHearSpeak 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
On User talk:BlastOButter42, Allstarecho said: Further, as was just pointed out in the revert by Mears man, being gay isn't a personality trait. So it's either best left where it is in the Dumbledore and Grindlewald section or in an entirely new Sexuality section but not in 2 different places. -- ALLSTARECHO 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. For now it would solve the problem of redundancy, and I do certainly think this is important enough to merit a sub-section under attributes, though it would be a short section for now; eventually it would probably expand with stuff from the books or further info from Rowling. -- BlastOButter42SeeHearSpeak 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think mentioning the reception of the comment from a very receptive audience helps the article describe Dumbledore.--Gamerver05 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case why does it belong in the place where is and not in a section devoted to further characterizations of Dumbledore made outside of the book, having it in the Dumbledore and Grindewald section seems inappropriate. Also if not should we have the reactions of audiences or readers to other parts of Dumbledore's profile?--Gamerver05 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Dumbledore
No, quotation marks would make it a quote. The article paraphrased Rowling. I'm not saying that the information can't be included, but if it is, it can't be portrayed as a quote by Rowling, because it isn't. faithless(speak) 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It can't be any more clearer that it's a quote when it says Rowling said... -- ALLSTARECHO 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a paraphrase. Notice how quotes have quotation marks, and that particular part of the article has none? That is because it isn't a quote. It can be rewritten, but it is not a quote and can't be portrayed as such. faithless(speak) 04:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me anymore, it's impossible to do anything good on that article because of all of the reverts. Put it how you want it but someone will come along and change it. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikilink inside quote
Regarding your edit removing wikilink of gay and referring to Manual of Style#Quotations, it does say Unless there is a good reason to do so... and, respectfully, in this case there is good reason.. first being because the word wikilinked is the breaking news and the a main subject of that paragraph.. second, there's no other wikilinks for "gay" in the article and we are an encyclopedia that makes use of wikilinks for people to read about other interesting subjects. I ask you to return the wikilink. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. One reason I removed the link was due to what seemed to be a dispute over whether to use the term "homosexual" or "gay", [1]; the other reason is due to the guideline I referenced, specifically "Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." I think it's best to leave a direct quote untouched. As recommended in the guideline, I would suggest finding a way to include the link outside of the quote itself (e.g. "Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was gay,..." followed by a blockquote of her exact words. Alternatively, you can also seek consensus on the talk page for the linking inside the quote.
The qualifier "Unless there is a good reason to do so," is a judgment call, and I believe the better way is to find an alternate wording that avoids linking inside the quote, yet preserves your requirement to have the link as breaking news. I'm thinking it's possible that this revelation may be notable enough to be included in the lead...where a brief, concise statement (sans any quotations, but plus the link) might be included...but that's up to the regular editors of the article and per WP:LEAD. Dreadstar† 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks, but I'm done with that article. It's impossible to do any good editing over there with all the anon and anon-register-just-to-edit-this-one-article folks. I would say however that regarding the gay vs. homosexual dispute, Rowling said he is "gay", her exact words. She didn't say he is "homosexual". Again, thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was hoping to reduce the edit warring while retaining all the good editors and getting them to work together to improve the article. There were several disputes centering around the actual quotation by Rowling - which seemed to be different depending on the source, I was hoping all the editors could figure that out on the talk page and not in the WP:3RR arena..;) As for the gay/homosexual..I thought it might cool things down to just leave the quote unlinked from either one..obviously that didn't work...<sigh>...but you gotta admit it was a good try, eh? I'm willing to ride herd on that article, to try and keep the vandals and edit warring down...but in any case, feel free to call on me anytime if you need assistance with anything... Dreadstar† 06:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Biting the newbies
Please be careful not the bite the newbies. New contributors are our greatest asset, and in order for Wikipedia to continue to grow, they need to be welcomed, encouraged, and taught. I noticed that you placed a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on the talk page of Govtwatcher (talk·contribs). I have removed it, and replaced it with a welcome template instead. Govtwatcher's edits were not vandalism, and you do us all a disservice by labeling the first edits of a good-faith contributor in that way. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If I didn't suspect him as a previous user who's hell bent on taking anything out of that article that makes former governor Musgrove look bad, I could understand. The asshole had the nerve to warn me twice, all the while actually vandalizing the article him/herself by removing sourced content. -- ALLSTARECHO 04:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I see he/she's been blocked as a sockpuppet. Imagine that.. -- ALLSTARECHO 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dumbledore vote
Hi. All the arguing over where we should discuss Dumbledore's sexual orientation is proving useless. We need to work out just who is in favour of what and a vote seems the only way to go about it. I'm asking for your opinion since you had a say in the general argument. Thank you. asyndeton 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Jackson, MS private schools
Recently you wrote to me:
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Jackson, Mississippi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. The article is about Jackson, the city, not Jackson the metro area. If you want to add things that serve the Jackson Metro Area, do so at Jackson metropolitan area. -- ALLSTARECHO 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think what we have here is a good-faith disagreement about whether or not Jackson-area private schools belong on the Jackson, MS page. I think you're being a bit too literal, you doubtless disagree. I think to call my edits vandalism overstates the case.
My apologies for the "vandalism" tag. That's how the 3rd-party script I use tags it and comments it on users pages. However, as stated, things not within the city of Jackson should be placed in the Jackson metropolitan area article. The Jackson, Mississippi article is for just that, things within the actual city limits. Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your copy-pasted comments
I've attempted to remove the incivilities from your comments at WP:UCFD, as I presume you know. I think you should be aware that your comments have been considered WP:POINT violations by more than one administrator, and are being ignored in determining consensus of these discussions. As such, continuing this would be considered simple disruption. So please stop. You're more than welcome to comment in discussions about the categories in question. But this is continued commentary on a previous discussion that has nothing to do with the current categories under discussion. Your last set of pastings were actually accidentally removed by me due to an edit conflict. However, I'll respectfully request that you not re-add them (and possibly even remove your previous copy-pasted comments, before someone else may) for the reasons above. Thank you. - jc37 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I will not. I have as much right to vote/post to consensus as you and anyone else. Kindly do not remove my votes/consensus again. That is vandalism. -- ALLSTARECHO 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No. It's not vandalism. And "any editor" may remove them, per WP:TALK. But I'm not interested in arguing with you about it atm. I just sincerely suggest that you please stay civil, avoid actions which are disruptive merely to make a point, and avoid personal attacks. You may find that others are more likely to wish to discuss your POV with you, when you actually attempt to discuss. I do wish you well. - jc37 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, there's nothing uncivil nor anything close to personal attacks in my vote. My votes are based on WP policy.. non-notable, has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, this isn't a social networking site.. it's all valid opinion. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I can add little to jc37's comments. I'm adding some templated versions of the warnings, in case the suggested wording makes more sense to you.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at WP:UCFD. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Your arguments have been noted and been considered uncivil and pointed.
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User:Arthur Rubin has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:UCFD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.
..he says as if I don't know anything about consensus being determined by discussion, not voting. I still have the right to post my valid consensus opinion as part of the discussion and none of you have the right to just wipe out my opinion. It defeats the process! It's not an edit war, it's reverting vandalism, which also trumps 3RR! -- ALLSTARECHO 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, All these "votes" are a result of the user's disgruntlement about the results of this DRV discussion. - jc37 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For further clarity, so what? It was exactly because of that DRV discussion that my eyes were opened and my thinking on User cats changed. That's not a crime. I know you're trying to make it seem that my "votes" are because of my dissatisfaction with the outcome of the DRV you've pointed out, but the reality is that my "votes" are because of the fact that I actually agree with that DRV now and as such, think it should apply to all "InsertWhatever Wikipedians" user cats. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your own comments illustrate that that's not true. Here's the original version, before I removed the worst of the WP:POINT violations:
Delete for the same reasons all of the following were deleted:
Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site and whatever else they spewed out to delete all kinds of InsertYourOwnClassOf WikipediansHere. -- ALLSTARECHO 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"...and whatever else they spewed out to delete..." - It's clearly a WP:POINT action. and lying about it won't change that fact. - jc37 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And further, do not call me a liar. WP:ATTACK much? -- ALLSTARECHO 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you would do well to read that page. Incidentally: " The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." - Or in this case, show me how you weren't lying, even in the face of clear evidence that you were. I'm following WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Anyway, I'm just hoping that you avoid any further or continued disruption - jc37 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Apparently "suggesting" wasn't getting through to you. Now I'm giving you a clear warning: If you continue edit-warring in order to continue your WP:POINT actions, you'll be blocked (for disruption, among other things). I hope that this clarifies. - jc37 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, what are you talking about now?? I haven't edited any of the UCFDs since??? -- ALLSTARECHO 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Since 12:56, 24 October 2007 ? --Orange Mike 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Since Arthur Rubin warned me about it (18:03 UTC), which was well before Jc37 decided to come and warn me again about it (18:30 UTC). Anything else? -- ALLSTARECHO 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:ANI is not the complaints department. Please stop disrupting the project to promote your point of view. -- Merope 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, complaining about how people are on to your shenanigans is pretty ridiculous. Please find a constructive way to contribute to the project. -- Merope 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If it really were "shenanigans" then you'd have a valid argument. Since they aren't "shenanigans", your point is moot. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the thread on the AN/I as it was going nowhere. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, after calling it troll discussion. Thanks a lot. (sarcasm) -- ALLSTARECHO 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Consider me moving on from this issue, but my "votes" and opinions, whether any of you think they are just to make a point or are some sort of vendetta - which makes you yourselves fail to practice good faith - are just as valid as any of yours and anyone elses who submits a "vote", be it on UCFD, AFD or anywhere else. -- ALLSTARECHO 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. FYI, none of the three racist self-centered defenders of irrational and hateful beliefs are admins. I've repeatedly explained to Regiment the appropriate manner of including a group or ideology in Template:Racism topics, but he evidently prefers edit-warring and personal attacks to following process and improving Wikipedia.
If you would like to help him, please help him understand that Wikipedia operates based on WP:RS and not WP:OR. I've tried to explain that to him in a civil manner but he won't listen to me. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I should have been more clear in my explanation to him regarding admins and how he won't win doing things the way he is. -- ALLSTARECHO 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
re: lgbt template
See WP:OWN, nobody owns an wikipedia article nor does a project own an article/template. I have every right to edit any article on wikipedia, who are you to ask me to leave that template? No offence, but i just wanted to mind you about a fact. That template was in bad shape, and i fixed it. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Me little bold always, but if you notice, my edits to that template were different everytime, and not just same reverts. Thanks and bye. Lara_bran 07:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Boy, the moment you crosspost about me somewhere else, about a particular subject, you lose the right to talk to me regarding that. In such case you can use article's/template's talk page, but dont expect an answer from me in user talk. Nice day. Lara_bran 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit war/revert summaries
You seem to be involved in an edit war on Template:LGBT sidebar. Please don't label other users' good faithed edits as vandalism simply because you disagree with them. I've restored some of the edit you reverted - intertersexuality seems a topic quite distinct from the others, and I really don't think it belongs on that template. WjBscribe 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reverting me without explaining yourself is not a good move. What is your basis for believing that intersexuality belongs on that template? WjBscribe 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
My basis is moot and isn't the point.. the point is there is a consensus discussion taking place and to make changes without that discussion having been completed and a consensus reached seems inappropriate. Lara bran has been asked nicely by several people, including an admin, to leave the template alone yet he/she continues to edit the template. All I did was simply revert his/her continued disruption and vandalism. -- ALLSTARECHO 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"All I did was simply revert his/her continued disruption and vandalism." You keep using that word "vandalism", but it is clear that you misunderstand what it means. Please give WP:VAND and a good hard read. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering he had already been asked, begged and warned by other uses and an admin, yet continued changing the template, that's vandalism. -- ALLSTARECHO 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See admin Alison's warning to the user and telling the user to leave the template alone and telling the user that people are already having the discussion regarding the changes he insists on continually making: User talk:Lara bran#LGBT Template -- ALLSTARECHO 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've spoken to Alison. It seems there are some unrelated conduct issues with Lara bran. I make no comment on those. But the LGBT project has discussed whether intersex is part of its scope several times and the answer has been "no". I wouldn't presume that just because a user is difficult all their edits are bad, and reverting me for making the same change definitely seems heavy handed. I've set out a fuller history of the scope issue at WT:LGBT - I see it as separate from any other problem with bran. WjBscribe 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that intersexuality shouldn't be part of the template, but that's not the issue. The issue was people making changes during an ongoing consensus discussion. Regarding reverting you, I don't see it as heavy handed since there's an ongoing current discussion about it. It shouldn't be changed while the project is in discussion about the very same change. Further, you'll see in my reversion that it specifically states Reverted good faith edits by WJBscribe. If I had meant anything other than good faith, it wouldn't say that. However, since you feel it was heavy handed, please accept my apologies. It's plain that wasn't my intention, only to preserve the template until discussion had closed. Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify that i had left intersexuality alone in my last edit, i did not touch at all, when and 'after' i found that it would be a dispute. But bisexuality --> bisexual was clearly uncontoversial, which was reverted without reason. Also addition of transexuality would be uncontroversial. But me off now, since only bisexual was my dispute, and all others were just suggestions. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Warning
I see that after I informed you that talk page templates have a standard color scheme, you decided to go out and break several more to prove a point [2][3][4]. I have reverted them, and if I see you break any more, I'm going to block you. Raul654 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop stalking me and my every move on WP dude. It's creepy. The color scheme is a guideline but specifically states is not set in stone. Further, one of those templates is not a talk page template. It's a userspace template. Don't you have some vandals to go watch instead of harassing WikiProject Mississippi and me???? -- ALLSTARECHO 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game
Hello, thank you for rating 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game. I can certainly understand the "low importance" rating, but I am a bit surprised by the "start class" rating. I would have thought that the article is "B class" already. Could you please point out a few things that you think might be needed to achieve the higher rating? Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There's still more info that needs to be added. Mainly, there are news media reports of why the "5 or 6 Millsaps players just quit".. being that after the last lateral, when the ball hit the ground, they thought that meant the play was dead because it became an incomplete pass, in their minds anyway. Had they thought it was still in play, it's doubtful the touchdown would have been made as when Curry picked the ball up off the field, he was surrounded by Millsaps players. I've added and cleaned it up a bit since, but I think there's much more meat out there for it. A screen capture image would be nice too. -- ALLSTARECHO 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, there is definitely more that can be added, no doubt about that. I am sure that the article will continue to improve. However, it seems to me that the standard for "B Class" has been met. From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mississippi/Assessment#Quality_scale:
Criteria: Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.
Reader's experience: Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
Editor's experience: Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
I think that the article comfortably meets the above criteria.
With regards to the screen capture, there is really no point in adding one. Wikipedia policy has been taken over by people who are rabidly against fair use images. A fair use screen capture would just get deleted.
Now, if you happen to know someone at the game, or if you could convince either school/team to give us a free use photo, that would certainly enhance the article. However, we have to remember that images are never a criteria for an advanced article rating. They are not even required for featured articles.
With the above specified criteria as to what constitutes a "B Class" article, I hope you will reconsider your opinion of the rating. Best, Johntex\talk 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
