User talk:Mushroom/Archive 12

Evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude are identical with user Lochdale

IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:Ted Wilkes and somehow related to the "copyrighted trademark owned by EPE" (i.e. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.), as this edit proves: [1]

IP 66.61.69.65 deleted comments by other users from talk pages (see [2], [3]) and seems to be a gay basher. See [4].

IP 24.165.212.202 seems to be related both to IP 66.61.69.65 and to hardbanned user DW, as IP 24.165.212.202 deleted these passages from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, which, among other things, mentioned that User:NightCrawler is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. IP 66.61.69.65 repeatedly removed exactly the same passages from the same talk page: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. This certainly shows that IPs 24.165.212.202 and 66.61.69.65 must be identical.

IP 66.61.69.65 also removed other critical contributions from the Elvis Presley talk page (see [26], [27]) and this IP confirms to know a lot about Bill E. Burk and what he has written on Elvis, as IP 66.61.69.65 says, "Perhaps you need to contact Elvis historian and former Memphis entertainment reporter Bill E Burk. He has several highly accliamed Elvis books in print. and he was a personal friend as well..." See [28]

To sum up: IP 66.61.69.65 admits to be in close contact with many of Elvis's friends, former employees and family, and claims that Elvis, while married, slept with hundreds of other women, that his step-mother Dee is mentally unstable, etc. (see [29]). IP 24.165.212.202 similarly admits to be "someone who knew Elvis all of his life" and says, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [30]. IP 66.61.69.65 also says that "there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and they most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM." See [31]. Significantly, User:Lochdale is also constantly talking of "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" and his chief witness is Bill E. Burk, an author IP 66.61.69.65 seems to prefer.

It should again be noted that the identity of User:Lochdale, who has also contributed under the IPs 83.71.77.27 and 63.85.72.242, seems to have only been created in order to remove my contributions (see [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] etc. etc.) or to attack and debase me and my edits on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]). If you look at the contribution history of this user (see [86]), he is frequently "dropping in" and either involved in deleting my contributions or constantly repeating the same accusations over and over again, namely, claiming that my sources are not reliable, that my quotations are out of context, that over 2000 books on Elvis do not mention what I have written (how should he know this, as he has not yet quoted from a single book on Elvis), etc. etc., though I have cited dozens of independent books and articles, among them publications by reputable Elvis biographers and university studies, in order to support my edits. This is very similar to the strategies my old opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes used in the past. Significantly, Lochdale is only removing content from the Elvis article which is not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. Here is what this user primarily wishes to read: fan stuff like this. On the other hand, non-encyclopedic fan stuff such as the section Elvis lives remains untouched.

It is certainly no coincidence that User:NightCrawler alias DW borrowed his user name from an obscure Marvel comic book superhero (see [87]) and that User:Lochdale is also interested in the same kind of comics, as, apart from deleting material from the Elvis Presley article, he is also contributing to Thor (Marvel Comics) (and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)) which deals with another fictional superhero published by Marvel Comics.

To my mind, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and Lochdale are identical. Further, there is much evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and Lochdale are also identical with multiple hardbanned user NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes (and perhaps with devoted Elvis fan Bill E. Burk). It should also be noted that shortly after the last contributions of IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 to the Elvis talk page on 25 April 2005, User:Ted Wilkes and his pal User:Wyss appeared on the scene in June and July 2005 (see [88], [89]) being constantly involved in edit wars with me, which is certainly no coincidence. Significantly, IP 66.61.69.65 has removed the following critical comment from the talk page: [90], and IP 66.61.69.65 added the following commentary to the same page: [91]. The latter edit strongly suggests that this IP is identical with User:Duisburg Dude, who was recently hardbanned for being a sockpuppet of User:Ted Wilkes. To my mind, there is also the suspicion that Ted Wilkes has created lots of new sockpuppets in order to circumvent his one-year block and to push his agendas. Onefortyone 01:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Current mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Ta for reverting Keith0422's gibberish on my userpage. WP:AIV awaits if he keeps this up. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have now blocked Keith0422 as a vandalism-only account and his IP address as an open proxy. Mushroom (Talk) 12:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you very much for reverting that bit of vandalism on my user page!! :) Srose (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Mushroom (Talk) 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Berlin U-Bahn Station

Why? WP:CSD A-1.--Hoyn 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A Little Less Sixteen Candles, a Little More "Touch Me"

Instead of reverting the vandalism, you deleted a perfectly good article. Why? A Lot of information was put into that article by me and many other established editors, and all that information is now gone. So I ask again, why did you delete the article? --DieHard2k5 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry! The article had been moved to A Little Less Sixteen Candles, a Little More 'Touch Me', and I mistakenly deleted the redirect. I have fixed it now. Mushroom (Talk) 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh okay. I was just worried for a moment that the article was gone. Thanks for the quick reply! --DieHard2k5 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss

'While it is OK to hold an opinion, it is very rude to interfer in the domestic affairs of another country' Agree or disagree. Discuss the proposition in the context of Tesco's UK affairs. 81.155.197.56 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to discuss that: Wikipedia is not about opinions, it's about facts. Unsourced, unverifiable information and original research are not allowed in articles. Mushroom (Talk) 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Re: Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Thanks for the housecleaning, can you fix footnote 6 and 10? since the page is protected, I can't, nor can anyone else who is not a admin. Travb (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed footnote 6, but 10 and 43 are empty and I don't know what they should point to, so I have put a {{cn}} in them. If you tell me how to fix them I will do it. By the way, can I vote for "what should stay in the article"? :) Mushroom (Talk) 04:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista article security

Hi. As an editor of the Windows Vista article, you may be interested in commenting or expressing your opinion on this discussion on the article's talk page at Security updates and patches --Peter Campbell Talk! 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for all your help dealing with the inappropriate mass-CSD-tagging by User:Hoyn to numerous articles. By the way, I noticed that every one of the articles he listed as CSD (excluding Thorntons, which is unrelated) were created by me. WP:POINT? WP:STALK? His only contribs are tagging "my" articles with CSD, the exception listed above, and an edit to your talk page. Anyways, thanks again. Daniel.Bryant 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure about that user's intentions, apparently he was a clueless newbie and he wanted to delete all those articles because they were very short. He misinterpreted CSD A1, but after it was pointed out to him he stopped. I assume good faith :) Mushroom (Talk) 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moff1.png copyright status

Hi Mushroom. Fritz S. has challenged the copyright status of a lot of the images on the Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire article. He says that the game-screenshot tag "seems to be wrong." I noticed that you changed one (Image:Moff1.png) from "don't know" to "game-screenshot." Do you know for certain that this image came from a computer game? I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Jecowa 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember why I tagged that image as {{game-screenshot}}. It was a mistake, since the image was created in Photoshop by -cg-: maybe it could be considered GFDL-presumed? Mushroom (Talk) 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you. Jecowa 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Wikipedia is amazing and I hope to make some minor contributions. Thanks for the welcome and for helping to provide such an amazing resource. David.Kane 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you for a warm, useful welcome - I'd like to make a bit of a difference! Hope to talk to you around. silverjonny 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to contact me anytime you need help. Mushroom (Talk) 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Mushroom. Thank you for welcoming me. Anything I can do I will do for you :). --National Girl 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you: If I need help I will call you :) Mushroom (Talk) 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope.

To all of the above. rootology (T) 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mushroom (Talk) 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Thanks for researching those ISBN on my talk page. Much appreciated. Rich Farmbrough 23:13 29 August 2006 (GMT).

You're welcome, glad to help. Mushroom (Talk) 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Age

areee you like 50 years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfdeeefault (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2006

No, I'm younger. Mushroom (Talk) 17:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

/wave

Thanks for the welcome message. I hope you didn't find something that I edited too out of place to warrant the instruction links! It's a lot to learn. Looking forward to many more edits. --Samweber 01:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't make any mistakes, I just wanted to welcome you and thank you for your contributions. Happy editing! :) Mushroom (Talk) 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hi

Hello man Jig-Saw 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello :) Mushroom (Talk) 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Signature

would it be a problem if i used this signature: SERIAL KILLER WITH A BLOODY PROBLEM 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I think it may be a violation of WP:CIV :) Mushroom (Talk) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

iVE FOUND A BETTER NICKNAME PUZZLE MASTER 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better :) Mushroom (Talk) 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill change it every few hours. PUZZLE MASTER 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

That's ok. See WP:SIG for more information about signatures. Mushroom (Talk) 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

and now this bulletproof 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this one better, since it's not uppercase. I have to go offline now. Bye! Mushroom (Talk) 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

see ya man sword dagger 500 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for posting on my thing.. i am still getting the hang of Wikipedia. I hope i can get the hang of it soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeM (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 September 2006

You're welcome. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

aspartame site

I saw the comment you sent to the one ip address about the aspartame acticle and not adding links- I just wanted you to read the recent addition i've made to the talk page called, "Great Links ... Removed? What?" I understand that you are trying to help, but please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 September 2006

I have answered at Talk:Aspartame. Mushroom (Talk) 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

uploading images

Exuse me i hate to bother you but i after reading the directions at wikipedia:uploading images i still dont understand what to do would you mind giving me a walk through or an explanation using less professional talk.I would appreciate it please. Jig-Saw 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies...

I wasn't trying to promote so much as contribute. There are a collection of articles on the site I manage which I thought people would find useful. I was posting one or two that weren't appropriate, which were just reviews, and I'm happy to remove those. I realized that wasn't right, so I just stuck to posting articles that were relevant, such as interviews and essays that discuss specific topics that were directly related to the films or people. I didn't mean to overstep my bounds, only that I have been using wikipedia alot lately and wanted to contribute somehow.

Michael Sheridan — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeeWulf (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2006

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

aspartame site

I don't really agree with you removing those links:

The discussion pages are a great source to many people who want to view other points of view and sources. If you police these pages in the way you are, you prevent discovery, learning, and the improvement of this great source. In my opinion the links I have listed are a great source as I have found them to be so- yes some of the links have commercial affiliation, but they also have many free sources and links to this topic. Do you think we should delete the external links of articles about your favorite companies (Nintendo for eg.) because it is a commercial institution and because those links are to commercial institutions (especially the last link on the external links for Nintendo, which when clicked on takes the browser straight to a page that suggests subscribing to a magazine)? According to the reason in way you have removed these links, at lease that last link on the Nintendo page probably shouldn’t be there, but why haven’t you removed it? It might be considered as great source for those interested in Nintendo- well I feel the same way about these links on aspartame. I would kindly ask that you at least leave them on the discussion page as a source of discovery for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 September 2006

I'm not saying they do not contain valuable content, and it has nothing to do with commercial content in this case. The fact is Wikipedia's current external links policy doesn't allow those sites because the information in them is not verifiable. That's because they are self-published: any website can claim all sorts of things, true or untrue, and unless it is written by a notable expert Wikipedia won't link to it. Regarding Nintendo, all the links are to official sites from the company itself, that's why they don't get removed. There are lots of Nintendo fan sites with useful information in them, but the Nintendo article doesn't link to them, exactly as the Aspartame article shouldn't link to websites that are neither official nor verifiable. That's not my personal opinion, it's just the policy. Feel free to add them back to the discussion page, though: I think that's acceptable. Mushroom (Talk) 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted to Harryhausen discussion

Okay, starting small this time. Sorry if I got overboard there, will take it a step at a time from here on out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeeWulf (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 September 2006

Thanks, that's better. Mushroom (Talk) 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Thank you for your message; it is appreciated. White Guard 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

walk through image upload

I still dont quite get it would you walk me through the steps one step at a time while i report to you after finishing each step.I hate to keep pestering you and i can just ask someone else if you would rather.I am truly ashamed of this slow learning. Jig-Saw 04:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript

Hello. I am translating the article about the Voynich manuscript for the greek Wikipedia. I thought the name "Voynich" was pronounced with the "ch" as "Mach" but i came across some greek websites that prounounce it as "Voynicz" ("ts"). Could you please help? Which is the correct pronounciation? Thanks in advance - Badseed 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Dr. Rafał T. Prinke, a Polish researcher writing to the Voynich Manuscript Mailing List:

The name is Polish - in original spelling "Wojnicz". The pronounciation is (roughly) Voy-neech (rhyming with "boy-leech").

This is the most reputable source I have found. Mushroom (Talk) 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot :) - Badseed 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Mushroom (Talk) 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Scanning of Talk Pages

'shroom, do u or does anyone of the admins or sysops do a blanket scan of talk pages once in a while? i just read 3 paragraphs into the talk page for the May Day article, and i think every wikirule has been broken. inappropriate user names, inappropriate language, personal comments, drug references, hostilities, political references, so far. im sure the rest of the page has more. u or someone else might wanna go in there and clean it up, or at least communicate with the parties involved. but if all of this is actually okay... then nevermind. 4.230.186.92 04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite common to see something like that when there are content disputes, that's why we have dispute resolution. The discussion you are referring to is pretty old (more than a year), so I don't think there's a need to contact the people involved. But the page should be refactored. Unfortunately I never refactored any pages, so I'm not sure I could do a good work. Maybe you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Refactoring. Alternatively, I could archive part of the page. Mushroom (Talk) 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)