User talk:The Squicks/Archive 4

Advice

My personal advice would be to simply disengage with Mbhiii for a while. I've tried to treat the situation with a light touch but he seems intent on escalating things again, and this is a kind of behavior I have seen from him in the past. If he keeps up with what he's doing right now he's just likely to dig himself deeper into the hole, and I'd rather not see other users (such as yourself) dragged down into that hole with him. I'm taking a look at his recent behavior and likely to bring it up for wider review, but in the meantime I'd suggest trying to limit your involvement and interaction with him. It's likely to be a breath of fresh air :) Shereth 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your comments. The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America’s Healthy Future Act

Your Revision as of 06:03, 5 October 2009 included a reference name, <ref name=Janet/>, that is causing a cite error. Can you go back and fix the error? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health care reform debate in the United States

Thanks for your follow-up edit here. I had mistakenly thought, without checking the source, that the quote was part of Ted Kennedy's letter. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I didn't catch that either until I checked the article. The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I get kinda caught up in there. This is why, ironically, I'm a mediator and not an article writer ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The Squicks (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of a Disappearance

Hi Squicks! I've started a review on your GA nom for Chronicle of a Disappearance. I've given it a week to try and get it more up to snuff for a true GA-quality article. Good luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for telling me! The Squicks (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow work on the review of the article. A new job interview sprung up on me and I've been busy planning for that. I'll work more on reviewing the article this weekend. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking RSN issue as resolved

I've asked if someone could close the thread at WP:RSN#Time of report based on article time-stamp - it's already going off-topic as far as the RSN is concerned. Would you be able to do that? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would much prefer that a uninvolved editor close the issue. BTW, great job on defending the al-Durrah article as it is now against those spurious points. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Pendent was a misspelling of pundit (clicked wrong thing on spell check. Your edit summary was a little silly. You also reverted in a knee-jerk fashion as explained on the talk page. To follow it all up, another editor believes you are editing inappropriately. Balls on faces isn't anything to get stressed about.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

What is the purpose of your referring to me lately as "Tom"? This is a signature I used to use but have not done so for some years. Your use of that old signature instead of the current one can surely only confuse other editors.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "Tom Hauskalainen" is either your real name or your preferred alias. If you dislike "Tom" (I have no idea why you would dislike it, but that's your choice), than I have no problem calling you whatever you would prefer to be known as. The Squicks (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was confusing to have a signature name that was different to my user name. I stopped using the signature because it could confuse others. I would ask you to desist from using it in future for the same reason. Hauskalainen is just fine as it is.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology still needed

BTW I am still owed an apology from you for a string of wrongful allegations you made about my editing and the mud throwing you attempted such as claiming that I have anti-American sentiments. That is a gross misrepresentation. You may have detected that I insert factual data about Canadian and European health care (and in particular UK health care) and root out mis-information (which comes from both sides of the political divide), but which has no place Wikipedia. That does not mean that I am anti-American or that I don't think there are not some parts of the U.S. health care system that work very well because there are indeed some very good examples of excellent and very cost-effective health care. A clear apology from you on the TALK page where you made those allegations is needed and without further delay. The next post from me about this subject will be to an appropriate Administrator page if none is forthcoming. No more arguing with you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_health_insurance_option&oldid=320889046

I did not add this text as you claim - it came about through my reversion of one of your deletions without an edit summary. Had you added an edit summary and explained the change my accidental re-addition of a very slightly misleading piece of text would in all likelihood not have succeeded. Please watch out - your verbal aggressiveness towards me has not gone un-noticed or unrecorded.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Michael Yon

The article Michael Yon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Michael Yon for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Jive

I've left a few observations regarding the Jackson Jive at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#The Jackson Jive, following your request there. -- saberwyn 05:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. The Squicks (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Glenn Beck

Not sure why the page is on my watchlist: I must've reverted some vandalism to the page at some point in the past. At any rate, if that sort of thing appears again -- whether in an article, talk page or user talk page makes no difference -- it calls for aggressive instant removal. Cheers! --Rrburke^(talk) 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aggressive instant removal My feelings precisely! The Squicks (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Grassley

Your opinions during the whole RFC were well on target. There was no reason for that information to be added, especially because it would turn out that the user had a history of sockpuppetry and pov edits. Richard (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, sooner or later that user's personal history will catch up with him. The Squicks (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does that comment about me in the Edit Summary refer to?

I am puzzled. Enlighten me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which comment? I've edited Wikipedia continuously in the past several weeks. The Squicks (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one "So, you are admitting to using biased language in describing a person in an article just because you don't like him? I'll be sure to note that fact for future reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_health_insurance_option&diff=prev&oldid=323373456

What biased language?
Who is "the person" I am describing? Senator Grassley?
What gives you ground for making any assumptions of my opinion of the "him" you are referring to?
What "admission"?
What is meant by "I'll be sure to note that fact for future reference"?

Make the note here. I'd love to hear more about it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Christian Bigotry

Stop editing and creating pages with your biased ways you bigot. I feel you should just quit wikipedia as every move you make is knowingly or unknowingly biased and skewed. Don't even bother to reply to me, just get off wikipedia and learn about how to present information in a neutral way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthyfix (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your behavior, you will be blocked soon. Be aware of that. The Squicks (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Prejean talk page

FYI. I agree that the blog portion was a blp violation and at least imho could be reverted as a 3rr exception. My comment was not intended to mean that I was going to let it stand, but rather I was going to then seek someone to make the reversions un-needed. That's why I posted to WP:BLPN although turns out the block-hammer came down before I could finish typing. Best regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Thanks for posting. The Squicks (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]