Jump to content

User talk:Gwernol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bibliomaniac15 (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 15 February 2008 (→Eh, Gwernol?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello. Welcome to my Talk page. Feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of the page. Please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Thanks, Gwernol.

Archives


Welcome back!

Nice to see you back here, and Happy Christmas. --John (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you, and a Happy New Year. Ref (chew)(do) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I really hope you will be able to stay this time. We need good admins like yourself here. I was thinking of you today as I was flying around NYC in a light plane. It's a beautiful city. Take care and enjoy the holidays. --John (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! You are back! Your page had to be protected several times. :-P miranda 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome back, I missed you! Happy New Year! NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Michael Jackson

Sorry about adding that without your permission. I have added a discussion in the discussion area. Many people wonder about Jackson's sexuality, and since there is nothing in there about his sexuality, I thought it would be a good idea to add that. With the exception of one sentence, I feel it is total neutral. The one sentence about his "feminine characteristics" can be debated however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GreatNonProfits.org has been flagged as a promotional website when in fact they are a great non profit organization like none out there gathering non profit organizations with reviews and summaries for people to volunteer and help. I believe it should be added. Please help me with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iastudilloi (talk • contribs)

Chamillionaire

How exactly did you find that image? diff.
Reply here, thank you.--Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Image Search it's right there on the first page. Gwernol 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, assuming that Flickr user is uploading copyvio images, this one may be another: Eminem warrior.--Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it even has a shady-unit.com watermark on it: clearly a publicity still and a blatant copyright violation, I'm afraid. Gwernol 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me how is this possible? For Pete's sake. Ok; the license is a free one but it's a copyvio!
Would you mind adding the proper speedy deletion template to the image?--Tasc0 It's a zero! 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edit summaries

Did you interpret that as a personal attack towards a user? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by Google

Please restore what I wrote about Censorship of Gmail on the article about Censorship by Google and what I wrote on Talk:Shabak. I'm the source and I put evidence on Talk:Censorship by Google and Talk:Shabak (deleted). Are you related to any government or secret agency and specifically the United States of America or Israel? Wikipedia should be edited by individual people, the evidence I wrote is concrete and should not be deleted. Citizen of the state (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow gauge railway

Re: the layout of this article. You wrote "I believe that moving the images so that the section text wraps around them leaves us with inconsistent and messy layout of the sections, and that having the images below the text is better. Let me know what you think.".

The article was recently edited and as a result there is a picture under the text for most country sections. I think this looks ugly because:

  • There is a chunk of unused white-space to the right of each picture.
  • The article is physically longer than it need be, because of all this white space.

I think the thumbnail pictures should be integrated with the text, as is normal in Wikipedia. I would also suggest putting them on the right, which appears to be the Wiki standard, but I don't really mind which side.

A train at Bad Bubendorf station on the 750 mm gauge Waldenburgerbahn between Liestal and Waldenburg in Switzerland[1].

P.S. I was the person who put the Waldenburgerbahn photo at the top of the article. I did so because I think the article gave/gives too much emphasis to old and preserved lines, and gave the impression narrow-gauge is "has been" technology. This may be the case in GB and USA, but is not elsewhere. I wanted to put a modern narrow-gauge line first in the article. I regularly use this line, though it isn't my photo, it is the one used in Waldenburgerbahn.

P.P.S. I didn't realise I wasn't logged in when I was doing the edits. TiffaF (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Point page edits

Why are you removing truthful data from the Check Point page? I see similar information on the Cisco, Netscreen and other company pages. Why is Check point being singled out by Wiki? If you want to edit the page, why not remove the inaccuracies instead? Please restore the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.226.122 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I filed this 3rr on User:Huwjones7. -/- Warren 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwernol, it's always a shame when people choose not to discuss the edits they want to make. Have a nice day. :) -/- Warren 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dude don`t change my dynanamite cop stuff, no reads that obnoxious article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammablemonkey (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo attacked me

I did not attack anybody. I was just using a popular expression. Lobojo attacked me when he made fun of my name when he undid my changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanSokandro (talk • contribs)

Sock?

Thanks for you help.


Single purpose actcount created 10 miutes ago, knows how to use wikimark up already and how to look legit by writing some random crap on the user page. Almost certainly an abusive sock, trying to get around 3rr, or cause others to do so. Checkuser will be enlightening I am quite sure of that. Lobojo (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crated a user page and wrote someting on the talk page (to avaoid red links) within one minute, then made the edit they wanted to. Almost certainly the scokputter of an established user. Lobojo (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was just deleted, this user knows exactly what he is doing after only 5 minutes. His edit was designed to tempt me into violating 3rr, and to make it imposible to keep the appropriate tags on the article. I think I know who this is. Either a sock or meatpuppet of established user who is very involved in editing this article. Lobojo (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the comment above too, he knows the game inside out. Lobojo (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE MAKE LOBOJO STOP MAKING UP STORIES ABOUT ME. I NEVER EVEN MET HIM BEFORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanSokandro (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on a child-like innocent voice "stop being mean to me" etc, are classic ideas too. Lobojo (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch o Abertawe

From Rob in Swansea, many thanks for the advice, ych chi`n gymro matey? I`m a newby so I need to be shown the ropes, I wanted to add that my addition to the Peru site was courtesy of www.citypopulation.de/paraguay.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.198.131 (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Krypto the Superdog"

Hello, I was trying to rename the userbox I created "User:Wolfdog1/Krypto the Superdog" to "User:Krypto the Superdog". I am not vandalizing and would appreciate it if you would undelete User:Krypto the Superdog!

Thanks!

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101

You might consider protecting the page again. I don't see too many anonymous edits that are not being reverted. I was considering doing it but you seem to watching the article right now. --NrDg 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the thoughtful warning concerning my edit on Tobacco Smoking. That will not happen again.--200.251.234.247 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion from Bruce Lee as OR

I just noticed that you deleted the most recent entry to the list of anime and video game characters modeled on Bruce Lee from that article, specifying that it was original research. Why didn't you delete all of them, as I see no difference in that respect (that is not one of them is reference-cited)? This, BTW, was not my work, nor are any of the others. My interest is purely academic, and hope that you can point out a distinction that I have failed to pick up on. Ted Watson (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your block of my ip in response to its persistent vandalism ;-) Phoenix-wiki 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust_denial

My edit was cited. Thanks for not bothering to read it before deleting it. Xulong (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border?

Carter: Yes.

SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?

Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.

SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?

Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that [b]enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.[/b] Xulong (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I was blocked for what reason?

I, LisaMinnelli, have been blocked for what reason? How absurd this site is!75.60.193.61 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striptease

I have been editing the wikipedia for years and some of my articles such music hall have been awarded 'good article' status. Why are you treating me like an idiot and saying I should use the 'sandbox'? I KNOW what is wikipedia policy and I KNOW that lists of songs and books on a particular subject don't have to have individual citations. But if you feel this way why didn't you put a 'citation required' tag on it rather than just deleting a whole section in such a high handed way? Bernard Rose's song 'The Stripper' includes the word 'stripper' in its title so it is obvious what it is about. The 'original research' requirement on the wikipedia was put there because some people were e.g. improving on Einstein's theory of relativity with their own theories - it wasn't meant to include lists of mundane every-day things about which there is no dispute like list of types of dog for instance or songs on the same subject. Some things are self-evident. Why can't you discuss this in a rational way rather than just throwing around a disputed interpretation of a wikipedia 'law' without even mentioning it on the talk page and then penalising anybody who disagrees with you? There are a few admins who regularly edit the striptease article and none of them has ever deleted that section. Are they wrong and you right? I will ask other admins their opinion on this. Colin4C (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdultFriendFinder

What? Myspace has the same problem with porn adbots going on. Don't believe me? I can prove it with screen grabs. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of "Embedded Compact Extended"

I have nominated "Embedded Compact Extended" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chemical Heritage

Chemical Heritage Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the history of chemistry. Part of our mission is to educate the general public on the history and heritage of this amazing field. As such, I don't understand why you consider our article on the process of extracting aluminum, which appeared in the on-line edition of our newsmagazine, to be promotional. Can you explain the reason? Chemical Heritage (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Chemical Heritage[reply]

Help me out please

As I am still pretty new to all this, can you please explain why you have taken out the following from the Millwall article: Keith Stevens: "Long serving and popular" How else would a player who choose to spend his entire career with one club be described? "Millwall's bitter rivals" bitter rivals is at the very least an understatement, we detest them them and they us, and what does "Citation Needed mean please? 'Arry Boy (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, it's a great help. Btw, those bastards gunners used to get a right good hiding from us in the Southern League, which is why they ran off and turned pro:) Cheers and once again thanks for your help 'Arry Boy (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page

[2] NHRHS2010 talk 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sox" Project

Hi, thanks for your speedy rebuff. I had a look at the Sarbanes Oxley Talk page and am now sorry that I dared dip my toe into that particular shark-infested sea. The article and Talk are discreditable to Wikipedia. Thanks, bigpad (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bono Edit

My purpose wasn't vandalising wikipedia.I tried to help you improve88.242.147.209 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodia

Hi, I did see the warning that you placed on User_talk:Hoodia2006 before I left the welcome message. I did this because although that person did place a spam link in the Hoodia article, I felt that the warning might be a bit like biting newcomers and they may have placed the link in connection with their business and sometime in the future in their personal life they might get round to putting something useful on wikipedia. I guess it's an assume good faith issue, and in future I'll edit the substed welcome template if they have made a negative contribution. Barry m (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning vandals

Have replied on my talk page, to keep the discussion together. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Cocoliras

I see that you have blocked user Cocoliras for 24 hours due to vandalism to the North America page. However, he has also disrupted the Panama City, Panama page with unconstructive and uncited edits. Please refer to the Panama City edit history for evidence. I strongly recommend having him blocked indefinetely.--Schonbrunn (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you should note that he has been recurrent in disrupting several pages. If you need further evidence, you can see his edit history (and evidence of edit warring) in Panama City, Panama, where he continues to add unreliable and irrelevant information.--Schonbrunn (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the speedy deletions

Sorry I should have read more about deletion before I started putting the tags on. Thanks for the reminder. --Wtfdontkill (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


while you're making changes to the Under The Mountain page...

Can you also add in the screenshots that I was trying to add in but couldn't?

you can find the location of the screenshots on a version of the page that a bot automatically reversed for some reason.

I think they're very relevant to that page as they give a visual aspect to the description of the series.

Thanks

About the Tony Blair Page

You state your opinion that it is only an opinion that Tony Blair was the only Labour Prime Minister to be involved with the illegal invasion and occupation of two soverign nations: Afghanistan and Iraq. If I was to provide evidence that my statement is fact rather than opinion would you change your opinion and allow this into the article on Tony Blair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.141.23 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your quick response and clear explanation on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.141.23 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RiainMcA

Hi Gwernol, you might want to tweak your block of this user so that the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" box is ticked. Since the IP wasn't blocked, the user kept vandalising under Special:Contributions/90.206.81.96. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I see that you have enabled the IP autoblock (see list of active blocks at 18:20, January 10, 2008). I guess the user just switched IPs. Spellcast (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. It must've been a friend. This edit, which says "HIYA RIAIN", leads me to believe it's a friend instead of the same person. Anyway, they're both blocked. Cheers. Spellcast (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for warning EmoxBoysxArexHot for his/her vandalism to 1993 -- I made the rollback, and, by the time I'd clicked through to his/her talk page to warn 'em, you'd already warned 'em! I certainly appreciate your help, and I commend you on your quicker draw.  :) Ashdog137 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:86.1.167.36

Replied on my talk page, just in case you haven't seen it yet. — Xy7 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008

Third personal attack

Hello, the editor whom you warned with a Level 3 Warning here, after I had given him a Level 1 Warning here, has attacked me for a third time.

Attack 1: here - "creationist troll"

Attack 2: here - "pathetic and vainglorious little ....'soul'" (he "apologized" for this one and "retracted" it... and immediately attacked me again within his "apology" - "disruptive and ineffectual")

Attack 3: here - "disruptive and tendentious editor"

As you know, Attack Warnings remind the editor in question to "Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors." This editor is apparently unable to do so without stronger encouragement from an admin. I have never attacked him or given him reason to attack me, but it's obvious that he'll listen to you before he listens to me. Thank you. Goo2you (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent additions to Whyte notation

Hi, I like your additions to Whyte Notations, they make a better example then using ascii, however I noticed the images are flagged for deletion pending copyright status. Please don't forget to add it soon so some bot doesn't delete them for no reason. I take it they are all your work but did not want to assume anything and mark them as such. Thanks!

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sandbox

Hello, Can't understand how you could have edited my sandbox 6 yesterday. I copied the relevant content into the current LNER Class A1/A3 article on the 29th of November last and thought I had erased this now quite redundant sandbox from my user page. However as you have just stumbled across it, it must be lying around somewhere in the WP tangle. I would be grateful if you could explain to me how to get rid of the thing for good.--John of Paris (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Microsoft Windows

I assume it was you who undid all my changes. You say "This is original research, lacks any sources and full of personal analysis". Well, excuse me, but the whole frickin' page fits that description. I don't believe there is a single source quoted anywhere. The observations I made are simple and transparently obvious to anybody who has used any of these versions. Some are important and address incompleteness of previous information.

How many other pages are you self-appointed guardian of? I've run across a few pathetically megalomaniacal beings around here; it appears to be their major source of sense of personal worth. I hope you're not one of them.

If I'm addressing the wrong person, then please accept my apologies. Freddyzdead (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:Sander85

WTF's the matter with you removing official sites from the basketball pages? Im working for a statistical company and provide info for people who want to see their webstie. Get a life bitch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander85 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY!!!!!

EXACTLY, I *was* editing in the sandpit. I don't understand the problem.!!!! PLEBIAN --LITTLETWOT (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got in your way there; I think we both tried to protect at the same time. Charming user, charming username. --John (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIGGERTWOT

Please see User talk:BIGGERTWOT. This is all too irritating... thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxymoron83 got there first - no worries. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for dealing with the vandalism on my user talk page as well - much appreciated. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good editing

on Jeffries. I'll back you up if needed. DGG (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I seem to be a few weeks late with this, but nice to see you back. – Steel 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for the rollback. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

Hi Gwernol, I was wondering if you were going to respond to my request to do something about the #Third_personal_attack this user has committed against me? I hadn't gotten a reply here or on my talk page, and there's nothing on his either. Thank you. Goo2you (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STAR-APIC page

Dear Sir. Let me don't agree with you on STAR-APIC page deletion. ESRI is not only GIS company, STAR-APIC is largest european GIS company. This is my reason to add STAR-APIC company page and references on related (GIS software) topics. Dlutskov (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FX solutions

Is it too late to add to this AfD the article IFX markets which was created by the same SPA user and looks very similar? There are two references but they both lead to articles in the same site (BNet) which as far as I can see don't actually mention "IFX Markets". JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com

I am not quite sure why I would need to cite something that is very apparent. It may not be as unnecessary as say "The sky is blue". And then you coming in and saying, "Hey, you need to cite that!" Well, anyone who has eyes can see that the sky is blue. Anyone who has experience browsing Amazon.com knows that Amazon.com features the reviews that are more favorable of any given product. It's not that these reviews are any better or more constructive. That may be the case, but I am simply stating a fact that is readily observable. I am not sure how I would cite this, anyways. Am I supposed to cite some news source? It seems as if though Wikipedia draws a very fine line, and tends to lean heavily towards citations. I appreciate this, but at the same time, it is frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIdealStatus (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba the Hut

You're keen! I was just adding the warning to that vandal, following me reverting, and you had beaten me to it! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the blocking! One day, I will have those powers.... (I hope - grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for the revert! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwernol. Recently you said I had removed content from the Stravinsky page. I've never seen the Stravinsky page before. Just thought you'd want to know. 128.143.35.242 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Stravinsky: Thank you for the helpful advice, Gwernol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.35.242 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another

I owe you one more for dealing with Asmkillr323 for POV etc. Many thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message about MoRpArScApE

It's a page i found i want admins to block other people with :( i'm the one who found it Runningblader (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well

that was my first one like that lol but ok i won't make another one like that.

lol=laugh out loud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningblader (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you have time to check my future artical to see if it has everything it need to not be deleted? here the url user:Runningblader/Sandbox --Runningblader (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for reverting vandalism/trolling on my userpage

[3] NHRHS2010 talk 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting a new birth data, added?

Because you have not heard about the person, does it mean, he cannot exist. How are regionally known person to be added??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.237.210 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

How is it vandalism? I merely left a message on someone's talk page (yours). Wow dude, learn to distinguish.72.68.195.77 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow population

Hello Alison Wheeler, I spoke to you at 2pm this afternoon with regards to the Glasgow article. Anyway sorry to trouble you with this as i can imagine you are busy.

I have written to and also contacted by telephone, Glasgow City Council Population and Statistics department. They kindly provided me with a population fact sheet for The City of Glasgow and Clyde Valley Conurbation.

The .pdf file is below. http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E3BE21DA-4D84-4CC4-9C02-2E526FDD9169/0/populationaug07.pdf

It confirms Glasgow's population in 2006 had 580,690.

The document confirms that the City is located at the centre of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Conurbation, which has a population of 1,750,000. If it would not be to much hassle could you either pass this email onto one of your administration volunteers in order to rectify the information on the Wiki Glasgow article, which is incorrect, or somehow manage to correct this information yourself. I have tried to change this information but it is continuously changed back to statistics which are false.

I hope this email finds you well.

Yours sincerely


talk:Gwernol could you please rectify the information? ~~Glasgowfinder~~

Hi Gwernol; I noticed you edited the Glasgow page and wondered what you thought of my comment at Talk:Glasgow. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo questions

I would tend to treat a kid who was looking for help a bit more generously than you did. The only message that you left was on the history page of the discussion page. So it is unlikely that they will ever see it at all. That's an OK way to communicate with an experienced editor. It's not an really a user-friendly way to treat a child. Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your positive reply... I'm rather over-critical at times! Amandajm (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vomiting

Welcoming me (hey look I've been registered since '05), calling a legitimate edit to vomiting "experimenting with wikipedia" and encouraging me to use the sandbox instead is pretty insulting. Vomiting is not an article about acid/base chemistry. Consequently the statement in the article reading:
"vomit contains a high concentration of hydronium ions and is, thus, strongly acidic."
is horribly pedantic and out of place. Having a low pH and thus a high hydronium ion concentration is the traditional definition of an acid. There's no need to use the definition of a term in the description, that's what the link to acidic is for. If you don't like my wording, that's fine, edit it to make it flow better. But don't blindly revert Vertigo Acid (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP removal

Please remove the two IP-signed entries (edit and undo) from the Striptease log, mistakenly done while I wasn't logged in. Regards, B-Twin (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: user User:208.137.6.64

Since your message on new year's eve, several edits which constitute vandalism have been made from 208.137.6.64- just a heads up :-) - Signpostmarv (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:WikiloverInAmerica

Sorry... I coudn't find your talk page. I'm very forgetful. What did I write? And please explain why it wasn't neutral. Sorry for my short term memory loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiloverInAmerica (talk • contribs)

Tourism in Europe

I think you mean the article Tourism in Europe (which indeed was deleted last July). The template I've created has never been created and then deleted before. I think what mind you with my template is that its title is a link to an unexisting article previously deleted. So, OK, I will change the title and unlink it. 16@r (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war (North America)

Ok, about the hatnote, is there a way of explaining the ambiguity of North America before the article starts describing? tell me if there's a way, as with the edit war, I do not know what is bad about adding an extra link, this is since everyone would like to know the largest cities in North America beyond the 10 largest, I tried to explain everyone, but without success.

Corticopia appears to be more opposed than others since Seicer, Spacepotato and others, all though it was fine. The problem is trying to convince him.

Cocoliras (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock evading user

User:Usaa member in poland seems to be a sock puppet of User:Robertjkoenig (same editing M.O., seems to admit as much in recent contributions). You've helped block these socks in the past [4], can you help out an block this sock too? Thanks --Matt (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my talk page

JERRY talk contribs 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wooden Railway

With all due respect, I am aware of the rules but the link was always there before I edited it with the sentence "a TAFWR message board" - so I think that you never cared about the link before I edited it with a brief bit of information and perhaps it would still be on if I hadn't edited it at all in the first place. It might be a forum but parents can find out information on it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&oldid=180531572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffeifanc (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wooden Railway

I respect you but I beg to differ. Indeed that the link wasn't there before I added it - but I had added it many months ago. Please look at the history of the Thomas wooden railway merchandise and go below 14 December 2007. One of the external links clearly says "The Thomas Wooden Railway Forums". Click on the current page, and "History". I had edited the page on 28 December 2007 at 1:45 to put beside the link "- a TAFWR message board". And that same day at 1:48, Gwernol had removed the link. Please look at how the page was before my edit and you can see that the link had always been there in the first place. If you don't take my word for it, see for yourself. And if that doesn't convince you, then I don't know how because I can clearly see that the link is above the Learning Curve link and below the Hornby link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&oldid=180531572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffeifanc (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&action=history

Thomas Wooden Railway

I see but can you see that the link was there before my edit on 28 December? Well, I suppose I shouldn't have edited it on 28 December since it got removed because of it. And I am not fimilar with Wikipedia at all so I wouldn't know if you gave me a warning.

This was the page BEFORE my edit on 28 December 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&oldid=177971554 And this was the FIRST page back on 9 March 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&oldid=113940729

As you can see, the link has been there and was there before 28 December. I don't know if you saw it or not. If you did, perhaps you should have removed it the first time you saw it? If you truly believe that the link would be spam/inappropriate for Wikipedia now but wasn't when it had been there all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&oldid=180531572 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffeifanc (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_merchandise&action=history

Template:Uw-userspace1

Has been requested for deletion by me. It was originally supposed to be humorous, Thank you for your contributions, but I like my userpage the way it was, but was decided against and I forgot about uw-upv1. So thank you for your concern. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accused of deleting content

"Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Panic disorder, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted" {{{2}}} Gwernol 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Nothing was removed. A footnoted comment was added. How do you propose I add the comment without it being deleted again by you? --Arrowsmith36 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates page

hi. i am trying to modify the "bill and ted's excellent adventure" link under the "later historical effects" subheading of the socrates article. as of 8:30 pm CST, the current "bill and ted's..." link has been vandelized. i am merely attempting to put up the correct link. the correct link should be: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Ted%27s_Excellent_Adventure

instead, i am getting notes from you that i am vandalizing the article. yes i am changing a link. isn't that permissible- especially if the current link is inaccurate or vandalized?

specific feedback would be helpful,

jord0077@d.umn.edu

end of email03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Stripey Zebras

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Stripey Zebras, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. This page has survived a past afd where the consensus was keep(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stripey Zebras). It would be best to take back to afd before deleting If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soz m8

i didunt no it woz band 2 du dat

hav u seen da nu railway in waterlooville itz rapid bru Phuckphace (talk)


National Rail

That the railway companies market themselves as 'Britain's train companies working together' whilst actually competing against each other under a privatised system is entirely factually accurate, and I'm disappointed that you keep deleting this important information from the National Rail entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.117 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding National Rail again...

It is a universally acknowledged fact - including on Wikipedia! - that Britain has a privatised railway system under which rail companies compete against each other. It is also entirely verifiable that the rail companies market themselves as 'Britain's train companies working together'. I'll try to rephrase the text, and include a citation, so that there is no hint of an opinion coming through but I think that given the above, you should allow the two facts to sit side by side and for readers to draw their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.117 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed

Very disappointed that you've policed that text again - my comments on NR's marketing outlined two valid, true, verifiable facts. Thought police alive and well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.117 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

Please explain in my user talk page (under your comments). What is going on? Whoaslow (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia webmaster who originally blocked me (John Reeves) is a vandal. He removed my reasonable comments because he disagreed with them. Why didn't you block him for vandalism? If I were to blank out a comment that I didn't agree with, someone would block me.

Do I need to pay to get full membership so that I won't be blocked so easily? I did not see where I can sign up for paid membership.

Even the other webmasters and that administrator who unblocked me did not agree with John Reeves. Mr. Reeves needs be more civil. His poor customer service gives Wikipedia a bad name.

As far as the changing of the title of the complaint about receiving a barnstar, I'm sorry. I can see how some people may not like it even though it was accurate. Whoaslow (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I still think there is inconsistent behaviour among Wikipedia webmasters, some of whom have hot tempers. However, inconsistent service is very common in a large company because they have to hire lots of people, many of whom are not very qualified. I am referring to large companies, not Wikipedia, although there are some parallels. Thank you again for your explanation. Whoaslow (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get rid of the red in my name? Ok, I now know it's not because I am not a paid member. Other people's names are blue, at least most people. Whoaslow (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Pornograhers

TNPs won a Juno in 2001. They were nominated but didn't win in 2006.BigRockFan (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell

I just edited my entry you moron. Get your bot in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.168.16 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the shamrock1fan page

You keep deleting it and it is NOT an attack, I am actually a friend of the real shamrock1fan and he is a troll, he is even mentioned in the trolls entry on wiki.

If you don't know what you are doing or the subject how about asking, instead of just deleting it. Shamrock1fan is a legend and deserves this article done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrock1fanfan (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBC on Heath Ledger

Gwernol, I read the discussion about adding the WBC to the article, but it said nothing about discussing the hate slurs against his name, only that we shouldn't discuss their plans to picket the funeral, etc. I understand about not giving the group power, as I personally despise them, but we can't ignore notable information just to take a stand - if we were to do that on Wikipedia articles, we should be deleting all references to the WBC on all related articles, and delete the article dedicated to them, too. Ledger passed, as all people do at some point, but not all people's deaths are followed up by such international attention - and most do not become the target of picketing and campaiging. When Steve Irwin passed and animal rights organizations attacked him, aspects of this were included in his article, despite the fact that some people believe PETA to be eco-terrorists. I think it is understandable to not want to give this group media attention, but we can't revert and delete information referencing them just because we don't like them. What are your thoughts? --Yaboii 100 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Word

What's wrong with you guys? Why are you deleting the facts that exsisted in one of the boroughs in New York and the biggiest cities in New Jersey for? 8:39 P.M. January 27th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Word

I will give you the time to keep serching for that racial word until February 29th. You will see that word on the internet. - Pekin Republican - 2008 January 27th 8:53 P.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I didn't want to look but just keep a record. Whoaslow (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Word

I said I will give you the time to search for the word until February 29th. And about the newspaper, how am I suppose to show you a newspaper of what happened in January 22nd? And the forums and personal websites, they show sources faster than a newspaper. You can always believe a white person but never a black person. Pekin Republican - 9:08 2008 January 27th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

curious, that's all

I neither want to censor them nor splash them on my page or in articles. Whoaslow (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alexalex2008 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Dear, Gwernol! You twice deleted the page I created, thank you ;) If for true, I really don't wanna harm WIKI, I just wanted to add information regarding my online music magazine. It has a long history and well-known on scene, and I sure, this info don't abuse WIKI ;) Can you help to do it correctly and right? Alexalex2008 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Alexalex2008 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you very much for so fast reply, Gwernol! now i'm realized where were my problems... in real, my magazine is totally non-commercial thing, completely free & full available for public all last 5 years, so my photo reports and interviews are fully & quickly accessible worldwide. and people who like the such music scene, enjoyed it as seems... and it was the only reason to add it here, for information purpose, not for advert or promotion. so i'll correct my magazine's history and bio for wiki rules, no problem! thank you again! best from Moscow, Russia! 

Alexalex2008 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your message on my talk page

Thanks, I'm really scared into editing straight now! 217.122.104.253 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Copernicus nationality in place

You comets about my entries is radiculous and arogant. Evrybody new Copernicus was Polish. The people who change the facts on Wikipedia notews are simple Prussian revisionists who can not accept the fact the Polish culture is equaly gooed as they would say about the German. They also supose that creatinbg a picture about some German roots in sized by Prussia teritories will convice sombody about German "rights" to this teritories. Please leave the true on Copernicus article. Actions against this TRUE is noted. --Kapsule (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tyson

I took that picture of Timothy Tyson. Therefore, I am the copyright holder, correct? You need to check your facts before you go undoing every recent change.
Falcofire (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a frequent contributor the NHC and recorded the video link titled Lecture on the same page.
Falcofire (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talyllyn liveries

Re this edit. It is correct - both locos have run in the Awdry guise in the past, as has No 6, and I believe it is No 3 to be repainted this year as No 6 has been withdrawn for overhaul. I think a longer section about liveries (not just those of the fictional counterparts) may be appropriate rather than squeezing it into the table, so I might add that at some point with appropriate refs. I appreciate there's a risk of the article becoming Scarloey Railway fancruft, and I'm anxious to avoid this, but given the history of the books some references are unavoidable. Any thoughts? Tivedshambo (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I have created a portal called Portal:Animal and a quiz (at the bottom of my user page) and I am lacking of experience to edit it. Could somebody help me to improve it?--Mark Chung (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

An "s" makes it different!Anyway, thanks a lot and I will award you with another barnstar!--Mark Chung (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan

I added to the "Bryan" page that the name Bryan is an alternate spelling for the Irish first name Brian.

I didn't think a source was needed for such a common place fact. I didn't add a source, but you could have simply asked for a source, rather than deleting the passage of text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.35.24 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in India Image

Beggar in Bodhgaya

There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here

I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:

  • The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.
  • Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled.
  • There are 11 country articles on poverty
  • This user is being uncivil and unyielding. This user has tried to have my user page deleted because it said America is priceless!
  • This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles.[5] Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.
  • WP:Undue says:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzadeliveryboy, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [6], [7], [8]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

  • You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

  • This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
  • Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. This suer also informed banned Hkelkar sock like Ghandar galpa. I will also request you check this user's contributions. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair?

I think your warnings should have tried to prove to me that I did what you said. In the article about the Republican Party, I was trying to point out there are other opinions on the issues than just the candidates opinions. I was actually trying to give what I wrote a neutral point of view. I think you should also have explained to me why you consider POV a reason to block someone. That is still unknown to me, since what I wrote could have been reworded by you or someone to make it even more objective than it was. There are other Admins so I think there would have been nothing wrong with taking more time, to explain to me why you believed you as you did.--Chuck Marean 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Heh....you actually threw the rulebook at my face regarding my problems WITH the rulebook. Nice one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.157.218 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Said That!

I never said you criticised my opinions. I said it was funny that you threw the rulebook in my face regarding my objections toward the rulebook. Go ahead and fucking block me. It just makes you twice as immature. Silence the ones standing up to you.

No, you see...

You just blocked me from using my OWN talk page. And extended it to 48 hours. All for absolutely no reason. You're pissed because I made a point, and you failed to acknowledge it.

I request that you unblock me. Don't you DARE ask me any questions at all regarding who I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilverAce (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck

Oh dear. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Nader articles

Thank you for the notice. Please note that I have been adding ample amounts of well sourced material to the artciles, and have redone the intro of Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns to address some POV pushing issues there, again with ample sourcing. Griot has been reinserting--against the wishes of about half a dozen editors--the same POV claim in both articles. He had agreed here to provide "A hundred" sources for the claim, but has obstinately chose to edit war and abuse other editors instead (and delete my talk page comment agreeing to his proposal). There, I've bored you with all that...cheers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North American currency union

North American currency union is not yet planned, but it is still up for academical debate (see North American currency union#Basis and origin and North American currency union#Criticisms and problems). Please think it through before you delete some links, like the one on Euro page. CrZTgR (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greetings from San Francisco

Hi Gwernol, My name is Mary and I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia. I would love to interview you for my story. May I give you a call? My email is mary.spicuzza@sfweekly.com Thank you for your time, Mary71.5.63.2 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RE: Adding San Francisco Giants Fans

First of all, this list of celebrity fans is mostly based on interviews, or just knowledge of the fact they are Giants fans, and for the most part there are no written articles on the internet about them being a fan. Second of all, every other baseball team on wikipedia has a list of celebrity fans that dont have references, so why are you picking on me? Lastly, this list was deleted by accident almost a year ago, I am just simply re-adding it and updating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregFD3S (talk • contribs) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Adding San Francisco Giants Fans

Excuse me, I was at speech that Steve Jobs gave at Stanford, and he mentioned he was a Giants fan. If you truly do know Steve Jobs, then just ask him if he likes the Giants.

I will go through the list and search the internet for references. I doubt I will be able to find all of them though. How much time do I have before you delete it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregFD3S (talk • contribs) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request filed

I requested arbitration. See [9]. -- Chuck Marean 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war continuing

Unfortunately the edit war by new user User:Sumerophile is continuing, just not on the template, but now on all the pages that contain the template. Rather than wait patiently for other editors to register their views on centering and positioning of the template, he is unilaterally moving the templates to the top of the articles as if they were infoboxes, and he is also repeatedly adding redundant parent supercategories to all of these pages in contradiction of WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT.

Changes like these disturb the article, but I am at a loss now for what I may safely do. The thresh hold for blocking used to be 3 reverts in 24 hours, and I have always been meticulously careful to stay under this thresh hold to avoid being blocked, while he freely ignores the thresh hold. However, when it came to blocks, I was blocked as if I had been warned, despite never receiving a warning before being blocked. I now feel that the thresh hold for allowable reverts has unofficially been lowered to some arbitrary number lower than 3, and I wonder if I may be blocked for reverting his bad edits even once - in other words, this means he would have free reign to do whatever he wishes to the article layout, categories etc. and no one may revert him even once, on penalty of being blocked? Or how should I know how many times he may safely be reverted with these bad changes before I can report him, since obviously the old number three is now in effect meaningless. Is it one time? two times? Or should he be given free hand to do as he wished that no one else may oppose? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm. I am asking for mediation, now. User Til Eulenspiegel has done nothing all afternoon but follow everything I edit with his own editing - ostensibly to remove categories from the page (which I'm not sure is correct), but also to move the template around and to revert content, succession boxes and templates that I had added to or edited on the pages. His condescending comments about "newbies" (in the summaries as well as on talk pages) is also really getting insulting. Sumerophile (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I am following is my watchlist, which happens to include all of these articles on Sumerian kings, as I have been monitoring them for changes for almost a year. And every few minutes I see on my watchlist that you have added the same redundant parent categories to each of these articles yet again, no matter how many times I advise you to read WP:SUBCAT and at least attempt to make some meaningful explanation, you simply return them again without explanation or response. Our dispute about the position of the template is also not resolved yet and until it is, it is also dismaying to see you continually changing it every few minutes on another article despite all the calls from multiple admins for us to "ceasefire". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We actually got some template specialists to redesign the template as a centered navbox and they both agreed that it looks bad as a right-justified infobox style. User:Sumerophile is continuing to revert to his version and edit war, this, and his refusal to stop adding and readding an abundance of extraneous stub messages and categories to each of these articles or even discuss why, despite repeatedly pleading with him not to add them, is making him one of the more difficult and uncooperative editors I have encountered in three years of editing. I am afraid to revert him at all, even though he is now approaching 4RR again on that template - because I got summarily blocked simply for reporting his last 4RR (even though I always make sure I never EVER cross the 3RR line, and I was never given any kind of warning whatsoever before I was "surprise-blocked"). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand that when a webpage is copyrighted, the copyright does not extend to all media on/within the webpage. This is a legitimate image which I obtained from a fellow reporter and he knows it is being used on wikipedia. You can not find a copyright for encompassing the photo in its entirety.
Falcofire (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on "Interchange Fee" page.

I am linking to some content on the Credit Card Page that you seem to have expert knowledge of: interchange fees.

Could you look at the interchange fee page and weigh in on the nascent edit war between myself and User:Stymiee?

I want to use your language, and Stymiee keeps changing it.

Thanks,

GBYehuda (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on SBXLII Spaygate Followup

I was putting a new link in on the story, and a redirect to "Spygate", this one from FoxSports. Please leave it alone, damn it. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:51 AM US EST Feb 3 2008

  • This was not a personal comment, the story broke on February 2, and I was adding information about it, and was putting "more info" on that particular item, as well as a new link from FoxSports.com about that phase of the story as well as the denial. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:03 AM US EST Feb 3 2008.

Shadow Circus Band Page

While in the middle of creating this page is was deleted just seconds after accidentally deleting the db-band tag. It is safe to say that not a moment was taken to check the reference link to verify the band's popularity and I was adding more as it was deleted. I was about to add the db-band tag to the top to prevent deletion but it was already gone. Can this page be restored with the db-band tag? All content is verifiable, this is a very noteworthy progressive rock group. This is also my first article and I am trying to spend the time to make it very informative and conform to all of Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, I appreciate your patience. Jplanet777 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening and Abusing Your Administrative Powers?

Gwernol --

  • Re you're comments on my Raysecurity page; I think you're abusing your administrative powers and you're ignoring the basic rules:
    • not to bite the newbies
    • assume incompetence instead of malice.
  • This seems like suspicious behavior:
    • you're supposed to use the vandalism warnings for extreme cases -- not for your first warnings. This would be like me immediately requesting arbitration.
    • you removed my contributions -- typified them as spam and disruptive edits - but left other inappropriate links -- raising suspicion (see below)
  • I'd like to assume you have good intensions, but so far your actions appear untrusthworthy to me.
  • I'd like to understand your side of the story, so I'll listen.
  • Maybe I just don't understand your behavior yet or there is a conflict in styles. \
  • Here's how I think of Spam:
    • if the sender has no consideration or care for the recipient, then it is spam.
  • Which is clearly not my actions, so you must have a very different understanding.
  • What is your understanding of spam and what are your specific claims, reasons and objections?
  • I reviewed the how not to be a spammer guidelines and I don't see the relevancy:
    • Review your intentions.
    • Contribute cited text, not bare links.
    • The References section is for references.
    • Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site.
    • Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar.
    • If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page.
    • Do not add an external link to your signature.
  • Here's what I see:
    • I add thoughtful and specific links to relevant information (Ward Cunningham had suggested I learn how to contribute to WikiPedia)
    • You remove my contributions.
    • You typify my contributions as disruptive and spam.
    • You use generic links to support your cliams instead of specific illustration.
    • You send me a first and last warning in the same session. You added your 3 comments within the span of 1 minute.
  • My conclusions are:
    • You have some internalized rule that you think I violated -- perhaps a style difference
    • You have no intention of being helpful. A helpful Wikipedia editor would educate and provide examples. Not reuse generic links and threaten.
  • What I would have expected is:
    • non-adversarial language and comments
    • clarifying questions
    • specific suggestions on External Links
    • guidance or help on improving over links to non-helpful, generic text.
  • Most importantly I would expect consistency in your actions.
  • What's really raising the flags for me and causing me to investigate more thoroughly are:
    • For Computer Security, you leave a link to http://www.securityfocus.com/ which is a commercially-driven, collection of threats and attacks, but remove a link to Guidance Share, which

is a factual collection of relevant, industry-sanitized, principles, patterns and practices.

    • On the career page, in the External Links, you left this (Does Parenting Ruin Your Career? — article about men from 'Sunday Life Magazine'

http://web.mac.com/david.vernon/iWeb/The%20Canberra%20Journal/The%20Scribbles/262AC8CF-AFEB-4CE0-A87A-AF04B259775D.html), but removed links to Coping with Difficult Bosses and How To Figure Out What You Really Want.) -- Perhaps the Coping with Difficult Bosses fits in a better section, but I still don't follow your rationale or justify leaving the previous link, which does come across as Spam.

  • I also see that you templated your text and generically resuse it rather than thoughful, relevant help for new Wikipedia contributors.
  • Here's another example
    • "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Hard money loan. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or

promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors

to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gwernol 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Commercial hard money. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for

advertising. Thanks. Gwernol 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)"

  • If you do intend to help, then I would like to know
    • If I were to contribute External Links that are not Spam, what would my contributions look like?
    • If I were to contribute pages that are not Spam, what would my contributions look like?
  • What is your motivation for your threats and attacks versus help and support?
  • What did I specifically do to cause you to decide that my contributions are disruptive, vandalism and spam?
  • What can you do to help versus threaten to abuse your administrative powers?


I look forward to your insights, rationale and clarifications. Raysecurity (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Ray[reply]

Longevity diet

I am still working on the article, will add independant sources. please do not delete the article. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article and added references and more information, if you agree with the current state, please remove the request for deletion/template. Also, please move the article as it is now to "CRON-diet", see the talk page of the article.

KVDP (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railfan Jargon Reverts

Could I ask why the last batch of references were reverted. I saw things left for my unlogged in IP.

I'm not sure how a Channel 4 Documentary on 'Bashers' would be original material. OK I admit using Youtube was a mistake. But would the programme count as a source?--Enotayokel (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentations, WP:ANI

In response to the message you left on my talk page ( [[10]] ), I think you misrepresinted on my talk page my edits to the Republican Party (United States) article and what I said on Template talk:Introduction to Wikipedia.

Hello, Gwernol. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[WP:ANI]] regarding You called adding a block quote to an article to be POV pushing, then suggested an edit I'm suggesting would be considered vandalism.. --Chuck Marean 17:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Circus Band Page Update

Hi Gwernol, thanks for giving me a chance to make some edits. I tried to include links to the keyboardist's Myspace which shows tour dates with various artists such as Jon Anderson Yes, and shows his appearances on Sirious radio and other tour information, but the Myspace links are instantly and automatically deleted. It also seems the links to tour dates with Zach and Jon Anderson on Jon Anderson's site was deleted, so somehow I am not allowed to include references necessary to show what is required. But, these facts are verifiable with a quick search on Google. Can you let me know if it is safe to remove the proposed deletion template, or if I must provide additional sources? Thanks again for your patience. I am willing to put in the work to make this a quality article. Jplanet777 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

You have just said i vandalised the super bowl page. Please say how i did this so I know for next time. Especially since I don't think I did do anything.... Thanks. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Hi, I would just like to sya I am very sorry that I made that one edit to the Super Bowl XLII page yesterday. I really meant no harm and did not actually realise (until it was to late) that it would be called vandalism. I am very sorry and I hope you will accept my apology. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playhacker's edits

[11] What factual errors are you referring to? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I got edit conflicted with IanManka when I tried to add the Super Bowl item at 03:06 UTC. Playhacker's edit was just a minute prior. I am pretty sure the game had just finished at the time Playhacker made that edit. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Playhacker acknowledged that he added it before the game had officially ended. I still don't think it was 10 minutes early, since I tried to update (was edit conflicted by IanManka) ITN after the game had officially ended. Playhacker's edit was at 03:05:44 and IanManka's addition to ITN was at 03:06:07. That's 23 seconds. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, shoot. I was looking at the wrong edit (he made the exact same edit minutes after he made the original edit). My apologies. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits - Playhacker

I made the mistake of doing that thing 35 seconds before the game ended. It was my fault, story is over. I accept that warning from you. I'm arguing about the one which I made after the game was over, after that LAST second elapsed. I rewritten what I wrote since it was valid then.

But this Compwhiz II gave me this warning: This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Super Bowl XLII. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

THAT WARNING WAS ABOUT THE EDIT after the game here

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of UK Railfan Jargon

Would it be a good idea if all entries that need to be referenced are tagged with a {{fact}} tag, thus identifying those which need attention and those which are considered to be correctly referenced? Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a thought. I'm happy for the unreferenced items to move to the talk page at the end of the month. At least then it will be clear what references are needed for. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source in your opinion? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did have my doubts. Ref'd a fair few more though! :-)) Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a hidden note to each section asking editors to add removed entries to the talk page. Would it be worth your time adding hidden notes (verified/better ref needed etc) to each entry? That way editors will be able to see which entries need work. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible source - not one that seems to be copied from a Wiki anyone can edit, think it has potential. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Truthanado (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

Did not know that he was copyvio... --BetoCG (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XStudio

Hi Gwernol. I'm not sure to understand why my article about XStudio has been deleted. I tried to follow all the Wikipedia rules and started from a template used in an existing article about a very comparable product: TestLink. XStudio and Testlink are very similar tools (both free, both have almost the same list of features, both dealing with test management). I tried to use the same content organization for my article about XStudio. Could you point me out what's wrong specifically in mine?
Thanks,
--Egavaldo (talk) (XStudio's developer).

5 o clock charlie

I completely edited the article for grammar and content as you can tell in the history. Are you really that inexperienced to not check the history of the article?
Old:[12]
New (my edited version): [13]
Please don't be ignorant.
Falcofire (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that user:Jnelson09 thought that and replaced the tag but he stated that "Nothing was changed" and merely undid my work. As you can see by the history obviously the entire article was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcofire (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need further re-writing. I accidently removed the notability tag as I was unaware which was the code for the rewrite tag. Feel free to rewrite the article further if you think it needs it! But gosh darn, I spent a good 40 minutes reworking the grammar in that article. It meets Wikipedia standards now! We should not base article tags on what one user's opinion of 'not sufficient' is. Falcofire (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gabriel

This article has been deleted. I never got a chance to read it. Is their a possabillity that I can have the text of the article and discussion that took place on this article? I have had this given to me before for a deleted article. It would be greatly appreciated. Robert C Prenic (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah P. Lovejoy

You created this page with the following sentence: "He served under the French-American General Girin who developed close ties to Lovejoy and introduced him to Abraham Lincoln." The only Google results I can return for the general are copied from this article. Can you authenticate his existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.195.151.84 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predicted events

Could you explain, why do you consider my edits to those years as vandalism? Just go to METI and check that those events are predicted indeed. Av0id3r (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you see this to be enough to name me a vandal? Although that source is in Russian, table data that I gave a reference to almost entirely contains numbers and international designations, and hence can be easily understood, so the reference is a verifiable one. You don't see this to be important, while I do. BTW, would you consider this to be important if Voyager 2 is predicted to arrive there instead of "just" an intentionally send namely to that destination in the sky radio message? Av0id3r (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confused on what I did wrong.

I was writing the facts on the "Republican Party (United States) - Name and Symbols" page [14] and got accused of vandalism. If my addition was fact then wouldn't the vandals who kept removing it be the actual vandals.

I meerly stated fact about what the republican party symbol was and explained the oddity of the stars and ended by saying that though they mean something (of which I found on another wiki page), there is no proof of a connection between them.

Was it removed because I didn't need the clarification of no connection?

As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up). Satanists use stars with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle, with the head of a goat inside the pentagram. However, to date, for the United States` Republican Party as a whole, there have been no direct correlations drawn between them and Satanists.

Cyberclops (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave

I liked my warning about the Microwave better. 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Blackeagles (talk)

Re the Locomotive tender article, I object to your deleting the link I put in on the basis that as it was US practice only so not really helpful. But how many website articles will cover practice throughout the world? I think a regional article can still be useful, and worth linking to.

The Wiki article itself has no definition of a Vanderbilt tender and I had put in this link as I had linked the article to my amendment of NZR G class (1928). Previously this article red-linked to "Vanderbuilt" (sic). Hugo999 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the republican party

Actually I was trying to say there was no connection between the two because I have seen such references made in the news media. All I did was state the facts about the inverted stars that are in the republican logo. When I first wrote that it seemed unfair because it seemed to draw the conclusion of a connection. That is why I added the disclaimer that there was no connection. When you said that it was "completely unverifiable", that was the point of the comment, that no one could verify it even though the symbols exist in the logo.

If I described Charles Manson as having a swastika tatooed on his forhead and then stated that the swastika was the symbol of the Nationalsozialismus party, I would be correct. But then I'd have to say that there is no direct relation between him and the Nationalsozialismus party. I'm sure even the Nazi party would not want to be connected to Charles Manson.

Point being, it's hard to say something that is the fact, though it be a negative fact, without being negative. How would you state the facts without leading the reader down that negative path when you still need to be truthfull about those facts?

If it is a problem then I'm happy to write "As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up). Satanists use stars with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle, with the head of a goat inside the pentagram." and leave off the part of "However, to date, for the United States` Republican Party as a whole, there have been no direct correlations drawn between them and Satanists."

Would that satisfy the masses?

I'm really being straight forward and honest. I would appreciate something constructive from you so we can get past this other than saying that it "clearly expresses your own point of view". - to which it does not. or when you wrote, "Pleae do not add such inappropriate material to articles in the future". Because saying they are inappropriate does not make them so and in fact, saying that when I wrote, "no direct correlations drawn between them and Satanists" was inappropriate would indicate that you believe there is a connection.

I've added hundreds of things to wiki about politics, billiards, gemology, metalurgy etc. before I even signed up for an account. I've always told the truth with fact and will continue to do so. I would prefer not to be soured because one person claimed I did something that I did not. I would also prefer that you leave politics out of it since that is what I attempted to do and if you can't leave politics out of it then please recuse yourself as judge and give it to someone else. I mean no disrespect. If you can look at it without leanings then please do so.

Cyberclops (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gabriel

I just found out the page I had written has been deleted. I have been trying to link this page to Energy categories and follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Is there any way you can direct me in getting this page back on? It is an important issue to many. ThanksDlcrossfield (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gabriel

Thanks for the quick response and offer to look at the article. I will definately bother you! Regards, DebbieDlcrossfield (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation on inverted stars

I drew those words "Satanists use stars with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle, with the head of a goat inside the pentagram" directly from a wiki page on pentagrams (see "pentagram" in wikipedia then look in section "2.3 Satanism"). I figured the safest way to get facts would be to use wikipedia. Are you saying I'm wrong in that assumption that wikipedia is a place to get facts?

Again, I'm only using the facts on what those inverted stars mean and did not want to lead any reader down the wrong path. But I am happy to use the statement of fact that...

"As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up)"

, then use a link to the other wikipedia page on pentagrams and satanism.

Would that be satisfactory? Cyberclops (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also on the pentagram

in that wiki page "Pentagram" you can also look at "Samael Aun Weor" where it also speaks about satanism. so there are to sections on that page about the inverted star that speaks to the same connection. Cyberclops (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more on the pentagram

Sorry, I hadn't finished reading the wiki pentagram site. Also see the "European occultism" section. The only other reference on that page is to free masonry, however, they no longer use an inverted pentagram because it is now rotated 36 degrees. That means the only references in wiki for inverted pentagrams are for satanism and evil. And, of course, the republican party. Would you prefer that I link my statements to my own section in pentagrams for the republican party. You could review it and let me know. I'm new to the writing and linking. I suppose I'd need to first write the pentagram section then a small blurb in the republican party section with a link to it.

Cyberclops (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stars of the US flag

As you said "stars are a reference to the Flag of the United States" which is completely untrue. The US Flag stars are not inverted. Perhaps you should actually read what I said I would do or perhaps I was not specific enough. I did NOT say I would still say that the GOP symbol is related to satanism... in fact, I have never said that. I said (and please try to follow along), that I would put this sentence in if it is okay...

"As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up)."

Notice that there is no mention of satanism or evil in that sentence? Then I could put a link to the pentagram section in wikipedia which has plenty of cites in it refering to inverted stars. I could be wrong but, from what I gather from your wording, you seem very angry at me. Please understand, there is no reason to be angry. I'm just trying to figure this out as I go along. If you cannot see that I'm not your enemy then maybe you could direct me to someone at wiki that I could talk to, please.

Cyberclops (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Got an ec when reaching for the block button! BencherliteTalk 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot Symbol

actually, the key word is "modern" mascot symbol because that tells people it is the most recent since the Republican Party has had several. And in fact, the inverted pentagrams are new as of about 7 years ago (I can look for the change in history, I have no problems with a little research). It's obvious the literal description is not needed because there is a picture. I am describing the most recent evolution.

The word pentagram is the proper name for the 5 pointed geometric figure that we are speaking of. "Star" is a relaxed slang for a pentagram. A star is a celestial body. There are no negative connotations for the word pentagram at all because it's used in many religions.

The term "inverted star" makes absolutely no sense since actual stars are masses (unless you're speaking of magnetic poles). and if you took the actual blurred imagery of a star (like what happens when viewing one through the earths atmosphere) it would show an even number of points like 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. but never five. So the description of "inverted pentagram" is proper. I only put "(stars with two points up)" in to help explain to those who don't understand the difference.

That is the difference between a star and a pentagram.

Thank you for being more helpful. I'm sure we can come to an agreement on what should be given as fact.

Cyberclops (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oneshotpop

I had already indef blocked the account when I noticed that you had given a final warning. You may unblock if you feel it's worth it, but I bet you won't. I saw nothing but vandalism. The account has wasted enough of my time. Royalbroil 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagrams

actually a pentagram refers to the five lines that are used to make it, not the extended points of a pentagon. Penta for five then the suffix gram meaning write or record. essentially writing five lines, not extending points on a pentagon. You needed to look a little further down that 1st reference page that you sent in the last message to see the root explanation of...

"pentagram "five-pointed star," 1833, from Gk. pentagrammon, properly neut. of adj. pentagrammos "having five lines," from pente "five" + gramma "what is written.""

And yes yes, I have already agreed with you that "star" has many meanings. But all stars are NOT pentagrams. I've already said that pentagrams describe the specific geometric shape we are speaking of.

In addition, I have said many many times in our conversations that I am not speaking of just pentagrams. I am speaking of inverted pentagrams. If you asked a hundred thousand people right now to draw a star, some would draw six points and others five and that's not really the point. The point is I doubt any would draw it with two points up - inverted. And when I went to your second link about stars, not one example had two points up and never once did they say one was inverted.

I really am trying to work with you on this but it's becoming difficult. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts.

These are the facts...

1)A pentagram has five points and five lines. 2)A star does not have to have five points. 3)The republican symbol has three inverted pentagrams.

These are judgements though clear, well founded judgements...

1)Pentagrams are not always negative, in fact they mostly represent positive things in history, religion and culture. 2)Inverted pentagrams are almost always negative except in the current republican party symbol and the old free masonry symbol.

What I feel you believe... 1)That the word pentagram is negative even though it is not because it is only a description of a geometric figure like a hexagon, pentagon, square, triangle, octogon, etc. 2)That you believe I want to compare the republican party with satanists even though I do not.

This is what I want to do...

1)Add this phrase to symbols, "As shown at the top of this page, the modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up)".

1a)If you like, for now, I can just leave that simple statement which is utterly and completely true because you see it at the top of the page and it would only be there to say that it is the "Current" symbol without referencing anything about inverted pentagrams or christianity or satanism or evil or anything. Later I could give you the links I've found for references to articles and books as well as encyclopedias about inverted pentagrams and the republican party.

In lieu of 1a),

2)Then link that to the other three, possibly four references in wikipedia.

3)Before I do that, I will do tons of research and have other links for you so it will not just be within wiki. But be forwarned. There are many articles out there that speak about the inverted stars on the republican logo - they are mostly very negative. I did not want to include them but I cannot play favorites when searching references if I am to be truthful and factual, and you seem to want proof of them.

At this point I would beg that I be passed on to someone above you who was not brought up believing pentagrams are evil and who is not biased, please.

After that I will be happy to submit all my research to that person along with our conversations if needed.

Cyberclops (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case....

you haven't seen, it's now the templates fault. User:Chuck Marean now believes the warnings are libelous, see here.

Have a good un. Khukri 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fear Chuck has embarked upon a crusade of sorts. I guess as long as he keeps his comments on talk pages, they do relatively little harm, though I should warn you that my experience is he is extremely persistent and extremely unwilling to listen to the arguments of others, no matter how well founded in policy those arguments are. It also appears not to matter to him how many experienced editors disagree with him. I'll keep an eye on his discussions to make sure they don't get out of hand. Gwernol 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Circus

I've removed the proposed deletion template since adding the references to the Paul Green school of Rock, other information regarding the keyboardist's performances with celebrities caneasily be Googled. Please advise if this article will be approved, and I will take the time to further the page content with the band sidebar, etc. Jplanet777 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my accidental edit on Talk:Cat. I've replied on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You make a claim, but can you back it up?

Okay, which part of it was inappropriate? People make those sorts of summaries all the time. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know why you're upset, but Wikipedia is not censored, so it should not matter whether I speak of ejecualtion or not. And no more threats about blocks, please. When you've only done what you feel will benefit an article, threats of being condemned simply for supporting Freedom of Speech get tiresome. Good day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griot blocked

Vandalism? I added the blocked user template for a user who is in fact blocked. Isn't something like that supposed to be there? Seemed like somebody forgot to add it. --BillyTFried (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickyrowalds

shucks, im sorry, all this new drinking and wotnot, glad to see the welsh blood is ever outreaching! tan y ddraig my brother! and i would say bore da, but have no clue what time it is over there. Nickyrowlands (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) four lil wiggly lines, hope its all good.[reply]

Gwernol

I have revised article for Nicole LaPlaca, if you would care to approve it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpea03 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help

Gwernol, I really appreciate all the help you have given me.--Sweetpea03 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for my input, always appreciated. I'll unprotect the page soon, move the subpage to Nicole LaPlaca and then hopefully go on to expand it. Thanks again. Regards, Rudget. 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I see you did a wikification as well :) Rudget. 13:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LESSON LEARNED

Gwernol, I'll keep in mind the personal attacks when other do as well. Arcayne's comments were also a violation of the personal attacks policy. Maybe you should have read them. I hope you cited him as well. Thanks. Don't know if I did this correctly but I'll keep in mind your comments in the future. Mastiff111 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. if you think Arcayne's messages were not personal attacks then you need a giant clue. Like Col. Mustard in the Study with the Rope type of clue. Anyway you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Please wise up. Thanks. Mastiff111 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prampton block

The only issue is the similarity of the username to the organization, and that they were using it to put in edits which could be seen as promotional. It's a soft block, so they can set up another account with a different username and continue making the same productive edits. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will unblock. But I really would like to see a username change, especially if the editor isn't connected to the trust. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

software as a physical good *IS* a controversial concept

Why did you revert my edit in Software engineering, where I explain a particular POV, which *exists* and I refer to it as a POV, without infering any preconception on it?

Ironicaly, the reason some people object to the "software as a physical good" metaphor because it is a loaded description of reality. 193.153.230.227 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks for the revert on my userpage

You're welcome. Just to let you know that you have an impersonator here, who is the sockpuppet of the user that you blocked last May, whose username was Ihateamos (he actually goes to the same school as me). That user also vandalized my talk page here and I remember that you were the one that reverted his vandalism. Once again, you're welcome for having me revert vandalism on your userpage. NHRHS2010 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS Riverdance

Hi, can you help sort out a booboo I made? The MS Riverdance article got redirected to M/S Riverdance (without discussion by someone who had never edited the article). I tried to revert the edit but it wouldn't work, so I recreated the article with the text, and then redirected the M/S Riverdance article. The problem is all the previous history is now hidden under the M/S Riverdance history, not the MS Riverdance history! :-| Mjroots (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened? I undid the second redirection and the article has gone! Mjroots (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Will let you work in peace! Mjroots (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've added an edit note to the top of the article re the redirection. Wiki can get frustrating at times, like when editors who haven't touched the article just steam in and make major changes without discussion. I'll AGF that they thought they were doing the right thing. Mjroots (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AxG was the second person to redirect the article. TheFEARgod was the original mover. Mjroots (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move M/S Riverdance back to MS Riverdance, by making MS Riverdance back to a redirect, and then moving it back, rather than a copy and paste move. --AxG @ ►talk 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Vararesande2

Didn't I tell you that I have access to other computers? I created this name purely for your *enjoyment*. And this time, I shall not edit anything. The next time that I do and it is interfered with, I shall see to legally having your assets frozen for a period up to 7 years with the possibility of having you deported legally, dependent on how I feel at the time. This is your final, and I do mean, final warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vararesande2 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-generated anaglyph

You might want to address my questions regarding your reverts of Caveman at Talk:Caveman, thanks. – Adrian Lozano (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:165.228.191.241

Is a block really necessary? The final warning was three days ago; if the IP is dynamic or shared it's almost guaranteed it isn't the same person. Just wondering what your opinion is. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some dynamic IPs recycle every time a computer connects to the internet. You do have a point about the signature thing, though; it is concerning. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not block for 3 days -- it definitely appears to be the same person, while the IP may be dynamic I doubt it is being "shared" for the time being.  ;-) (jarbarf) (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have another Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your due diligence keeping Wikipedia free of bad jokes (and other related nonsense). (jarbarf) (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coleen's Real Women deletion

This wasn't an attack page, but a page about a notable hoax. --Ashford1982 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have added the info in about the hoax, seeing as the show itself is not a hoax, but the content is rumoured to be a hoax. --Ashford1982 (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)

Hi, the message I left him was a mistake, it was intended for another user and was an accident. Sorry about that, but was the "only warning" message you left me really necessary? Kevin Anton's Lazy Eye (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Gothenburg

Would you please look at the talk page for the article, user Socrates2008 is altering discussions to make it look like an oppose vote when it was a comment. He is trying to bias the discussion to get it to reflect his POV. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How To

As noticed by other comments Gwernol is very particular. After reading his Wiki articles I have notice a writing style that is very different in nature, possibly from a technical stand point.. If this format and writing style is the protocol to use for article submission. I propose it will be wise if Gwernol writes a how to article on how to write and edit like him. This should save time for many of us in the long run. I have concerns as a new member that as soon as I write a article it may be deleted if not to his liking. Gwernol if you have this much power over Wiki users than maybe you need to educate us also on what you like and don’t like so we may step in line. I say this in respect, I feel why even try to participate when as a contributor you cant win. In addition could you please be not so quick to ban new users. Give us some time to get used to this. Constructive criticism may be better that two warnings and then banned. Kind regards vmd921 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmd921 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: John Awbrey Sock

Can you comment on this (I'd rather you reply directly to User: LookingGlass who seems to be ignoring my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry! Believe me, I wish this mess would go away. Let me know if you need any support or anything, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic

You deleted the page. There's an issue as a person who previously deleted it left very dispariging comments which have been cached by google. They border on defamation. So there's a need to make sure that the page either exists or the comments are expunged.Gkleinman (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than unfortunate the comments on the delete page are spiteful and libelous. The solution here is I've created a new page for XC which you should tag WP:COI and then let the debate about notability occur again as we are a notable source and the issue with google's page pushes this issue as an immediate one Gkleinman (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, need your help. A user has now nominated the page for deletion. I submitted the page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography to deal with wp:COI issues/etc. But there's a user who has it out for me who has rushed to delete without even looking at the talk page or any of the issues. Gkleinman (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayass Wikipedians

Excuse me, you may have missed the discussion on ANI last month about users adding cats to their userpages even though the cats were deleted. The consensus was there was nothing wrong with it. So please do not remove it from my userpage again. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the discussion took place at Village Pump. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 19#Categorizing in a deleted category. Until there's an official policy somewhere or consensus changes, I will put the cat back on my userpage - not to make a WP:POINT or any thing else but because I want it there for hostorical purposes. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM

I'm not sure precisely why Chuck chose to raise the issue with Jwrosenzweig—perhaps because James's name appears on the lists of former ArbCom and MedCom members—but you might want to address Chuck's note (it would probably be appropriate to bust out with the classic "sigh"), although, of course, I don't know that you really need expend any more time on the matter. Joe 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotic Traiangle

Hi Gwernol, thanks for such a clear explanation. You reasoning is very clear. To be truthful I can't recall the text of the Semiotic Triangle article, and now I'm even more intrigued as to what about it might have been misleading. Anyway, your logic is (naturally?) sound and I can readily accept it. It is a pity that so many people and so many words had to be written to get at, in the end, what seems to be a very simple fact. By the way, I still don't understand how I could have put my initial note at the top of a page I couldn't reach . . . I would edit the Triangle of Reference but would have to delete most of it and that would get everyone very upset so I'll decline! Thanks again. (p.s. how did you get dragged into this exchange anyway?) LookingGlass (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Basketball

I find it quite distressing that my edits are being deleted since the article in many parts, although it has seemed to have been modified many times since, was entered by us and came from our own copyrighted material. Why is our link as an External Link continually being deleted ? We have been and continue to be one of the oldest active Fantasy Basketball News, Information, and League Sources on the internet, and as such (in conjunction with the aforementioned content/copyright) feel that this link is a valid external link. This is not spam, we realize there is no SER and could care less about that. Please do not delete this link in the future. Thank you 14 February 09:18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.72.220 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment re: MONTCO

There's where you are wrong, it is a valid Fantasy Basketball link. As is the more appropriate DMOZ FB Leagues page. If that is not the case then the external link to NBA Fantasy Games is "advertising" for NBA.com and is an inappropriate link as well. Further, which I have stated will document in edits, much of the material provided by us initially. Please read the discussion page, as I will be editing the page back to it's premorphed & more relevant/pertinent version to Fantasy Basketball players and people who have an interest in that subject (ie: people that would actually use the page for their benefit). I will also be adding back many External Links that I feel are pertinent to the issue, again that are in the best interests of the people who would use the page/article, which I had planned on doing next week (see discussion page) but will move up that timetable. I may be mistaken, but from your comments it would appear as though this is not an area of expertise for you and therefore do not have an accurate understanding of what the average person who is interested in thsi subject would find useful. Although your comments and intensions behind policing Wiki are well intended, they should be directed to areas which you have a more accurate understanding as to what may or may not be pertinent —Preceding unsigned comment added by FBF Commish (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: It is indeed a shame that you are acting in the manner of a self-righteous Wikipedian. As someone who is not only a credentialed member of the press but a Fantasy Basketball insider it is (or was as per you I am no longer allowed to edit this page) my intention to revamp this page to better inform and contribute to Fantasy Basketball players knowledge and enjoyment of the game including 1) sources that are and have historically been useful in informing Fantasy Basketball players (for which I have a list of external links to which I have a vested interest in none), 2) Varied league types, formats, guidelines, and settings (which I had originally in the article with no links but for some reason have over time also been deleted), and 3) Lists and Suggestions of "How To's", etc of running, joining, or playing in a Fantasy Basketball league (again with no external links in this area). However you would prefer that active as well as potential or interested Fantasy Basketball players (not Baseball mind you) not have access or be made aware this information. I have not edited any pages on the "Boer Wars" for example, as I am not knowledgable enough in the area to be qualified to do so, yet in this area where I am you feel that you have a better grasp of what is useful to Fantasy Basketball players without having that knowledge or understanding, including external links to DMOZ (who's links have become quite outdated as well a a number are no longer valid - how that is relevant or beneficial to anyone I have no idea) and an "advertising" link to NAB.com's Office Fantasy Games (not NBA the news source mind you). It was my understanding that part of Wiki's function or purpose was to "inform" and "educate", however I did not realize that had changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.72.220 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me master

but if you check out User:ILike2BeAnonymous edits, they are very similar and they just are not considered to be personal attacks. Fair is fair right? There's nothing attacking about my edits either. I was merely verbalizing my frustrations at an editor which seemed unfamiliar in a belligerent manner towards the wikipedia norms. He seemed to be deficient. I find you to be very proficient, am I now attacking you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs)

purple haze allegations

i demand an edit summary and for you to identify who i was supposedly "attacking" wow big word. will i be accused of rape, murder, and war crimes next! this is an attack on my person...SLANDER! your bombastic edits are being poppycock hacia mí señorita! ¿y sabes qué...no es cómico! Y on who's authority will i be blocked? what have i disrupted. What about those african elephant dudes...they are real vandals, stop them! please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs)

i was unsure of what you were talking about, and you have to diffs when you make horrible accusations like you did to me! and stupids me, is in references to myself thilly goose.

Help me, Buddy!

It has been a long time since I edited SMK Semera. I will give some info but will you help me to rearrange it?--Mark Chung (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme!

Gwernol!I am Mark Chung and I am blocked because my cousin/Kelsi Wales vandalized wiki with my comp! I scolded him and could you please unblock me?--202.188.84.223 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocked!

--Mark Chung (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Gwernol?

You might want to archive your page. Just a suggestion. bibliomaniac15 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwernol&oldid=191574680"