User talk:WJBscribe

Regarding your edit to File:2002 0101 000215AA.JPG:

Your recent edit to Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Dissidents

You have removed two articles from the category named "Dissedents". In light of this I have proposed that the category should be renamed "Communist dissidents" 87.194.35.230 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RK

Actually I'm not particularly bothered by GA status. Its good to fix things up, but the rest is just window dressing. But I'm not trying to take anything away from your work. Thats just my personal take. Frelke 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WJBscribe,

thanks for your kind remarks regarding the Ruth Kelly article.

After seeing your editing work over the last days I apologize for my comment on the Ruth Kelly talk page suggesting bad faith editing in the Fathers for Justice section of the article. The days before I had seen several obvious bad faith edits by other users (not in the RK article), but I shouldn't have extrapolated. --Túrelio 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

They definitely should be put up for AfD. I will put them up. --Ineffable3000 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate List of famous tall men, List of famous tall women. I am about to leave. --Ineffable3000 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rafikilives' block

Thanks for your message. I suppose it depends on one's assumptions about human nature. When I see someone register an account and immediately make more than one unambiguous vandalistic edit on a high-profile article, I am inclined to do as I did. If the user wanted to post something on his talk page (which he can still edit), indicating an intention to improve their behaviour, I might reconsider. But I think it might be easier in this case for them just to start a new account. --Guinnog 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_bisexual_people

I've replied to your note at the above-referenced page.

Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

... and you replied to my reply about sixty seconds before I posted here. I should pay more attention :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry -- you did quite the right thing; it's important to be able to support this sort of statement. Thanks for your prompt replies and willingness to help keep Wikipedia accurate and useful! :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Random suggestion -- you might find it helpful to other users to include a link to your talk page in your signature. It simplifies replying to your posts, and in this modern, goofy, mixed-up world, we need all the simplicity we can get :) — User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it back. People are always griping about technical aspects of my .sig, and I always say to heck with 'em. Do it any 'ol way you want :P

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

unhelpful

Yes, I do think you are unhelpful to everyone. Too many people on wikipedia like being 'the police' or the run around frightened doing what they think the police want. TerriNunn 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGB

Thank you. I have been watching your efforts via my watch list, and commend you for your own work. It's terrible how many people are being wrongly tagged, or aren't at all - I wasn't expecting, when I first took on this task, to find literally hundreds of people who are not on the list: I'm working my way through all the LGBT categories just to find the categorised ones.

If you're planning to do this for some time, would you interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Terrinunn, just ignore her, she's convinced that everyone who has ever been rumoured ever to be bisexual ever should be listed, regardless of whether its true or not, and accuses anyone who reminds her of actual Wikipedia policy of being restrictive, vindictive tightwads. NNDB is not a reliable reference, just as IMDB is not - which is why every bisexual I have added to A-E from that list, if they were referenced by NNDB, I found a new one. Same mainly goes for Clublez, though if they referenced where they got their information from, I sometimes use it. If someone is bisexual, it shouldn't be a problem to find a reliable reference - though Clea Duvall has given me such a headache. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is a fairly reliable reference in my estimation, though not as a sole source. If we set our bars too high, every reference is unreliable :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS says no wikis may be used - IMDB is written by users sending content in, and is therefore unreliable. I saw IMDB more explicitly rules out somewhere else (I used to quote IMDB all the time, and got slammed for it), so I really wouldn't use it for anything other than films. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuals

No, go for it. I was going to do it after I finished the list of LGB people, but I think that's going to take waaaay too long... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this girl is determined. Utterly misguided, but determined. I wonder what she will do when it gets deleted (you're right, so I won't vote). Come back and harrass us, I suppose. Oh well, if we develop a guideline by consensus and get the WikiProject involved, there's not a lot she can do about it. :) And with her incivility, it's a matter of time before she gets blocked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom

Hi there. If you're involved in this article, perhaps you'd like to try to discuss the rating further with Joel on the SOL, either on the article's talk page, or his own. He's pretty exercised about the whole thing. Jeffpw 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you on NerriTunn (and everyone else seems to be ignoring her by mutual agreement as well). I've never intended to improve Civil Partnerships in the UK, I've only ever wanted to rate it and get on with my life, and it's fairly obvious that Chris the Anonymous IP is Joel in another guise. Basically, he's going to let the rating go, and so the matter now rests. Pour oil on troubled waters if you like, but I'm going to go have my university interview today and forget about it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Thanks for your help soothing the bruised egos on the Civil Unions page. your suggestions there are constructive and should help to improve the article. I agree that Dev could have expressed herself a bit better, but the rating was made in good faith. I sincerely hope you and the others involved will be able to get this to GA standard or higher. Best. Jeffpw 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I'm such a meanie. : ) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vandalism on the featured article.

What's causing it? I am baffled. I thought it was the template but I can't figure it out. Made of people 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try deleting the section on Fundamental Duties and then previewing the article as a whole, the picture will disappear. The answer lies in that subsection. Made of people 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

That template was part of the problem; I reverted an edit and indefinitely blocked a user, but I am still looking into it. Something is not quite right. --HappyCamper 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as sick of his presence

I find it massively ironic that someone who threw a massive temper tantrum over a rating called me a silly little girl. If the best he can do is throw hissy fits and personal attacks, he's best off Wikipedia, and his meatpuppet too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his contributions to the Civil Partnership article itself were good- and I am a little overstretched with other projects to give it as much attention. I have to say I'm not overly comfortable with the spead with which the words sockpuppet and meatpuppet were used. As far as I know checkuser was not used to see if they shared an IP address and think WP:AGF suggests we give them the benefit of the doubt. I would haved like to convince Chris and Tom to stay, I think we could have gotten over the fight over the rating. Still as you say the bickering off the page won't be missed.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the term meatpuppet because that's what MrDarcy wrote on the AN/I - but I think they are the same person (One is not expected to assume good faith where there is good evidence to suggest otherwise). They edited exactly the same articles. They both got extremely defensive and irrational at exactly the same things, and edited in the same way, even their writing style is virtually identical. If you were to look at their comments without looking at their signatures, I don't think you could tell the difference. While that user may have made good contributions to the article, ultimately without references its as good as worthless and his touchiness about us pointing that out, and his bizarre insistence that three links to BBC articles was "of the highest calibre" seemed strange. This guy owned this article far too much. If he comes back, I think he should try and stay calm and willing to listen, rather than throw around wild accusations because his work has been indirectly criticised. I think I might involve myself in the article after all, if only to demonstrate how an article above a B grade should be written. But I'll do that somewhat latter - after I've dealt with this list mess. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reporting vandalism

when reporting anonymous vandals (from IP's instead of users) use the {{ipvandal|0.0.0.0}} template instead of the {{vandal|0.0.0.0}} template. This allows admins to more easily do research on who owns the IP and what action is appropriate. Cheers! /Blaxthos 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]