User talk:Ehdrive
Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Ehdrive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Martin Porcheron 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Sudbury[edit]
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. And thanks for a really excellent contribution to the Greater Sudbury, Ontario article; I'm a gay man who grew up in Sudbury, so it's definitely of interest, but I didn't feel particularly qualified to write it up myself since I haven't lived in the city in over a decade. The one minor thing I'd like to point out, though, is that Wikipedia style isn't to capitalize every word in a subheading title; the title should actually be "Gay community and culture" rather than "Gay Community and Culture".
At any rate, there are a couple of internal Wikipedia project boards you may be interested in:
- Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board coordinates Canadian articles and discussion on WP,
- Wikipedia:LGBT notice board does the same thing for LGBT-related stuff.
Anyway, welcome again, and thanks! Bearcat 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Aw! Thanks Bearcat. I immediately expected to see it deleted. I was pleased to know someone had actually improved it. I no longer live in Sudbury either but moved away only 2 years ago and still have close ties to the gay community. I had been thinking of including something for a few weeks now regarding the community. I'm still a new user. Thanks for the tips. Ehdrive 21:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Back in July , you changed it to say that Yorkville stop at Church Street, I have changed it back to Yonge Street, perhaps may have confused it with Collier Street. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Infor Global Solutions[edit]
Please do not remove Speedy deletion tags. Use {{hangon}} instead. Anyway, minor edit tags are not a valid reason to revert edits. Also, Twinkle, which is used by a great number of wikipedians marks the CSD request as minor. RogueNinjatalk 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate my point about using the hangon template rather than removing the CSD tag. RogueNinjatalk 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- After reading again, it does seem a little notable. It needs to be written less like an advertisement though. 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it looks like you took care of that. 18:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If a revert war is in progress, it might be more appropriate to request a 3rd opinion to deal with the revert war (don't forget the backup available at WP:AN3) before asking for feedback. It will be easier for you to improve the article without disruption. Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ehdrive... disputions of content are not a reasonable reason for blocking... your threatening to block me however may well be a blockable offense... as such I have sought the attention of an administrator and am requesting moderation, during which time you also may not block me. Your abuse against editors and would be editors of the videoblogging page have gone on long enough... I will be seeking the stiffest penalty I can against you. Your delete mongering / trolling of the videoblogging article with thousands of thousands of deletes, your inability to collaborate with anyone at all, and failure to make a single positive contribution to the article as demonstrated in the history of the article should be more than enough. You have made over half the edits... and not a single one of them is a contribution, they are ALL deletes. The history of the talk page itself also illustrates this domineering of the vlog article as every single issue has been Ehdrive against everyone else. If you would now attempt to submit the article for deletion one more time based on it's lacking of substatiation, a situation you created... as you've already done once before my evidence will be complete. I've also noted to administrators you've vindictively gone after other articles I've contributed to. I'm not a vindictive person... but you've left me no choice but to go on the offensive. For documentation purposes I'm posting this to my talk page as well as yours. --mmeiser 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
I thought I should post this notice as a counterpoint to your posting alerts on my talk page. Please do not continue to delete large sections of articles. Perhaps in seing this obtuse message you can understand how such official looking notices are not helpful in resolving dispute merely in escalating it... continual escallation is yet another trait of trolling. I hope instead you will not continue to delete, and I will in fact give you the opportunity as a sign of good fait to reinstate the material you deleted thatis' in dispute and joing me in a request feedback. I'm looking for the proper forum to request feedback now. I will leave a message on the videoblogging talk page regarding the proper forum. If neither of us find any middle ground we can then excallate the issue to 3rd party arbitration... or on to some higher form.
I think we could used some seasoned veteran feedback... not just on what is written... but also on how to maintain a helthy atmosphere for good positive contributions... it's always a fine line with participatory media between being discouraging quality participation and discouraging vandalism... I encourage you as in the past to use a lighter hand, it's to easy to just delete... in reverting your deletions I was simply returning the same action in kind because I had no other choice. Put yourself in my shoes... how would you like it if someone deleted every SINGLE one of not just your edits on an article... but everyone's edits. All I did was turn the table on you and hit the undo button. It's turnabout... and it will get us nowhere.
And just an fyi... As per the official looking notices (vandalism templates) I don't think the sandbox is going to help either of us. These templates are for newbies... we're both far more experienced than that. Surely we can resolve this. On a side note, I've learned an awefully lot about the subtelties of discouraging bad behavior and encouraging positive behavior on open web services... it's the brilliant nity grity of social engineering... and should come in very useful on mefeedia.com. I've always admired the low barriers to entry (the openess) and subteltie with which wikipedia encourages positive user interaction. Lets struggle for more effective low level methods of dispute resolution before we escalate this. I will be awaiting your response about reverting to the full article so we can submit it for peer review. Peace. --mmeiser 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message regarding my help with this article. As you may be aware, I have been in dialogue with mmeiser about the issues that he and you have, and I really hope that we can get this resolved amicably to the reasonable satisfaction of both parties, But that's going to take some compromise from both sides, yourself included. I was somewhat disappointed to find that a quite vicious and protracted edit war has been going on, and that you appear to be not entirely without culpability. I can appreciate, from all that I have read, that you have good intentions in terms of removing unsourced material and OR. But things have got out of hand with the repeated removal and reinsertion of said material. Whether this could have been averted early on, I cannot know for certain; maybe it could have. But until some clever Wikipedian invites a time machine, we'll have to make do with sorting out by compromise and discussion. I have suggested to mmeiser that he try to work on his version of the article in his user space, getting everything sourced and cited, with no OR, and that he invite you to see it and comment on it. I hope that you can do so without any prejudice from the recent warring; I'm sure that you will look on it fairly. I have also suggested to mmeiser that he keep the option of RFC if this cannot be sorted, and as a last resort, ANI. The primary reason why ANI should be an option is your use of vandalism warnings. I would be happy for you to prove me wrong, but I cannot find any policy that labels the insertion of unsourced material or original research as vandalism. Those tags should only be used for warning genuine vandals; in using them, it looks like you ignored AGF. mmeiser is, I believe, editing in good faith. I can understand that the edit warring has led to frustration, but it would have been much more productive - and within civil policy - to discuss it properly rather than make threats about blocking. Once that avenue has been exhausted, then take it to RFC. I hope that I can be of some help to both parties in working this out peacefully to a satisfactory conclusion. Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just an FYI, I have responded over on my talk page at length... I see adrian has been most helpful here with his advice. I thank him tremendously, his feedback and perspective are most appreciated. I have already moved my edits and past edits to another wiki space off wikipedia as I have serious questions, especially since the retributive editing incident that Ehdrive is continuing to collaborate in good faith, but perhaps this is not a bad idea to bring these edits back to wikiepdia work to evolve the vlogging article within the protection of my user page or talk page where I can foster a more collaborative atmosphere. I would encourage Ehdrive to do do the same with the article on his talk page as this would help him evolve it out of the way of malicious editing however he might describe it. This might illustrate the differences in the success of our approaches in evolving an good article. For my part I'm trying to be more polite and patient, not for the sake of Ehdrive or because of his accusations, but because I wouldn't wish this sort of negative atmosphere on others on wikipedia. Not to say I'm a saint or that I won't as my right use the term frak on occasion, those damn B.S.G. writers. :) --mmeiser 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re: request for advice. In light of the recent CSN that mmeiser initiated, I would suggest that you hold off editing that article and anything that could be considered as related to the dispute. For what it's worth, I don't think that CSN was the right step, but now that mmeiser has taken that route, I would rather not get involved too much. I might comment at CSN, simply to outline the recent discussions between us, but I will leave the assessment of the situation to other editors now. Hopefully, they will be able to help you and mmeiser to resolve this finally. Adrian M. H. 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy notification[edit]
This is a notification to let you know that a discussion has been opened involving you on the community sanction noticeboard. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I see Seraphimblade has already notified you but I thought I should also leave a comment since I'm the one who initiated the discussion at community sanction noticeboard. --mmeiser 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Video blogging article[edit]
I've begun to contribute. I don't understand the details of the dispute you're involved in but the vlog article itself seems to be a straightforward job of adding details and references + smoothing the prose style to be less of a list and more of a prose description of vlogging arranged into a more readable paragraph structure.
Perhaps there could also be a section on the evolution of vlogging from video diaries and video bulletins, both of which preceded vlogging. I'm going to include something about the BBC's Video Nation
--wayland 11:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Waterpolo[edit]
Bonjour Ehdrive, I was wondering if you would like to join the Swimming WikiProject. The project covers all water sports, including water polo. Please think about joining. See you around the pool! --wpktsfs 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Lattitude and Longtitude[edit]
Some articles (like this one Giant's_Causeway ) inject coordinates. But they do not get added correctly to the page, it is injected via some dynamic html nonsense - this means that 1. you can't edit them - which is ok, if they are correct. but 2. it also means it ends up displaying wrong for some people (like me) with the coords flying over other items on the page (the word "Coordinates" is over 'free encylocpedia').
Can't this be changed to it inserts its text normally like all other wikipedia tags. IceHunter 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your viewpoint. I just went over to Talk:Homeopathy, and there are no apologizes for being rude, for taunting, for being uncivil. I'm not looking for any, because I doubt it would happen, but there has been no change in the discussion tone. But thanks for trying. I'm just going to continue to edit to a neutral POV, and comment on the Talk section as to my reasoning. If there is a civil discussion, I will gladly participate, and will join in a consensus, if one is available. Orangemarlin 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not about homeopathy's effectiveness? Well, I disagree, I think that's all it's about. By which I mean to say that, in my opinion, tony's objections boil down to the fact that he's upset that the article points out that homeopathy has failed repeatedly to prove effective in any way at all, and using it over conventional treatment, can well, kill you. I will admit though that I could have been a tad more diplomatic about it. ornis 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I shouldn't have deleted the Basophil reference.Orangemarlin 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For not letting me be a bugger...[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Following your perseverance in a stubborn Administrator's refusal to accept he's wrong, and for going about it in a civil and friendly manner, I, AGK, award you, Ehdrive, the Barnstar of Diligence. You're an asset to Wikipedia! No hard feelings, mate. Regards, Anthøny 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
- Cheers, Ehdrive! Anthøny 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Repost of Zeitgeist (video)[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zeitgeist (video), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zeitgeist (video) was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zeitgeist (video), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, this has been deleted so many times that you need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and make your case there. NawlinWiki 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3rd Opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diavlog[edit]
Everything sorted to your satisfaction? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Zeitgeist[edit]
Let's see what kind of coverage comes out from the festival over the weekend. That may do the trick. You might get some personal satisfaction out of this. My boss called me to his desk about twenty minutes ago and asked me for help downloading Zeitgeist The Movie. You should have heard the Marge Simpson sounds I made. - Crockspot 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Re:Zeitgeist redirect[edit]
It did when I tagged it. Check the logs; it redirected to a nonexistent, and at that time protected, page. Chubbles (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The page did not exist between 20:59PM and 23:34PM on November 18. [1] I tagged the redirect at 23:02PM. [2] Anyway, it's water under the bridge. Chubbles (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
ZtM[edit]
My intention was never "to put you in your place." You are doing a great job! --Stephen 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit]
Just wanted to say thanks for what you did with the Zeitgeist article. Akiyama (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Workbrain[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Workbrain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Workbrain. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Zeitgeist criticisms[edit]
Please take another look at what you reverted (which I actually just partially reverted). Specifically, the citations to the Arizona Wildcat and The Gauntlet are not reliable sources by any meaning of the term (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). Not only are these publications student newspapers, the references are opinion pieces therein. They fall squarely inside the realm of self-published sources, and well outside the exception for expert publications. Further, I went and looked back through the history of this article, and these sources weren't used in the article that was endorsed at the last AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, to avoid turning the history into a mess, I'm just reverting myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Josh Leo[edit]
I have nominated Josh Leo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Leo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
HST[edit]
FYI I replied to your question. --Doradus (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I like your rewrite. --Doradus (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Ehdrive. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)