I noticed that you tagged the page Image:DSCN0183.JPG for speedy deletion with the reason "No licensing information; picture was uploaded January 25, 2005 but is still not included in any articles; user who uploaded the picture hasn't made any edits since uploading this image and therefore probably isn't going to make use of it anyway". However, "No licensing information; picture was uploaded January 25, 2005 but is still not included in any articles; user who uploaded the picture hasn't made any edits since uploading this image and therefore probably isn't going to make use of it anyway" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I saw "no licensing information" in the criteria somewhere... guess I was mistaken. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll put a different deletion tag on it. Hbackman02:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned that the article did not have headers nor links. However, I realize that you are much more experienced than I - I have just started to edit last month - so if you could let me know what your point of view on this is, that would be great.
Again, thank you for bringing this up. I will use your feedback to improve my editing.
Typically, when I see a "wikify" tag, I think that that means that internal links need to be created and the article needs to be formatted to follow Wikipedia style. Sometimes that means adding headers, but an article this short typically doesn't need them. If you think that the article needs external links, you may want to use {{unreferenced}} (do not subst it).
Happy editing! Feel free to drop me a line if you ever need a hand with anything else. I always enjoy helping out whatever newbies come my way. ;)
I'm wondering if you might consider joining Esperanza (which is a Wikipedian organization dedicated to strengthening WP's sense of community and generally promote well-being), as you do a lot of things that would fit into the spirit of Esperanza, such as help other users. — nathanrdotcom(T • C • W)07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually considered it in the past, but I feel as though joining an organized body like that would make me feel obligated to spend more time on activities relating to that body, which would take my time away from other things that I'd rather work on. I prefer my community-building activities to be less formally organized and more something that arises out of my other contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I appreciate your thought. :) Hbackman02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[name removed] is a real teacher at ranney.
[name removed] and [name removed] are gay together.
i go to ranney.
this is fact.
I think people would want to know this FACT about ranney, if they were researching it.
you are a krik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.220.219 (talk • contribs) 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in the original vandalism issue; I just got involved when you started vandalizing a couple of user pages. I will say, however, that "I go to ranney" is not sufficient evidence to support an assertion. We have no way of telling whether that assertion is true, to begin with. Anyway, the phrasing of "are gay together" suggests to me (and probably to many other editors) that you are more interested in attempting to attack those teachers (why leveling assertions of homosexuality is an attack is beyond me...) than in adding constructive information to that article.
Also... what on earth is a "krik?" I'm assuming it's intended to be some sort of insult...?
well, im new to wikis, and didnt know not to edit the user page.... also, their homosexuality is not an insult. it is simply a fact. these two teachers go to ranney and are gay together. [name removed] is a physics teacher at ranney, this is not merely an assertion, as the reference official ranney website proves it. youre a krik. if you must ask what a krik is, you will never know. krik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.220.219 (talk • contribs) 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
If you're going to continue throwing immature insults around, I am going to continue warning you for personal attacks. Please note that you can be blocked for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks.
nevertheless, my edits were factual, and referenced.
they didnt deserve to be reverted.
we must not attempt to fight facts, for this is obviously a futile battle.
also, you have NO PROOF that krik is an attack, so stop warning me for NO REASON. krik.
69.141.220.21901:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)dangerous[reply]
The context of your use of the word strongly suggests that it is an insult, as does your refusal to define it. That is, I think, sufficient to warn you for a personal attack. (Also, your continued use of it is an obvious attempt to irritate me -- so I should probably tell you that you're wasting your time with this). Hbackman05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you still have absolutely no point of reference or direct element of proof to display that it is an insult. you are a krik. accept it, and move on. you see it as an insult only if you choose to see it as an insult. it is not by duty to define words for you, even if i use them. to ask such is ludicrous. referenced material should not be reverted and pompous people should not attempt to scare off new users as you are doing with me. krik. 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)69.141.220.21906:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can intervene for a minute...
Namecalling is immature. Stop personally attacking and trolling. The word 'krik' cannot be googled or looked up in any dictionary, therefore it is not a real word. By your repeated usage of the word, you intend to mean it as some sort of insult. Try one of the thousands of real words available in any dictionary. — nathanrdotcom(T • C • W)09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the backup. I doubt that the anon will care, but it's nice to know that no, I'm not crazy and overreacting. ;) Hbackman23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my talk page Hbackman. I'm sorry it drew out the trolls. This conversation takes me back to school. I doubt the teachers that the student insulted would be too disturbed by the immature insults, they are teachers after all. I suspect they would be more embarrased by this student. Anyway, I am not responding to him anymore, just ignoring, as they say don't feed the trolls. I am watching his edits and reverting vandalism. You might want to send it to WP:AIV if he insults you anymore. --DarkfredTalk to me16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I'm honestly amused, not upset -- the "insults" are so immature and ineffective... it really brings me back to my own middle-school years. ;)
I do have some problems with feeding the trolls when I think that they may actually listen to reason (I believe there's a mini-rant about this on my user page). After the anon's final message, I decided that s/he was no longer worth my time.
Thanks for the info on RPA, I don't censor attacks on myself, but I don't want this to show up when someone googles one of this guys teachers. Thats not the point of WP. --DarkfredTalk to me00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the names in question, just in case. Amusing use of the term "are gay together" though, as one doesn't have to have a partner/bf/gf to be gay/bi/etc. — nathanrdotcom(T • C • W)04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I received your message on my talk page, and I will refrain from dealing with Kross for the short term. I feel that is the best way to handle the situation, and quite I'm realizing he's not worth my time. OsFan02:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that. I've nearly lashed out at him several times. Some of my older comments to him are definitely a little more sarcastic than they should've been. You do get kind of inured to him over time... till then, just remember to breathe. ;) Hbackman03:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that I was being uncivil and that I was engaging in personal attacks. I stated facts as I saw them. I made no ad hominem comments. I feel I was treated shabbily for following the rules by someone who wasn't following the rules. Further, I find it very troubling that you have threatened to block me simply for disagreeing with what I see as poor treatment. While Wikipedia may not be a democracy, it's not a fascistic autocracy, either. Administrators make mistakes all the time, and presuming their infallibility, while always presuming the non-administrator is in the wrong, is destructive to the Wikipedia community.Jeff Fenstermacher23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have not threatened to block you. The first paragraph of my message on your page was a standard NPA warning that is given out to people who have made personal attacks, and it contains a note that those who engage in personal attacks may be blocked just to make the recipient aware of that fact (we like to make people aware that they're engaging in blockable offenses before they're actually blocked ;) ). Furthermore, you would not be blocked simply for disagreeing with an admin. If you disagreed by acting disrespectfully, however (and please note that I'm not suggesting that he has free rein to act disrespectfully toward you -- admins are bound by the same rules), you can be blocked for making personal attacks. I really doubt that it'll go that far in your case -- I think that you're taking the right steps to resolve this in asking for an advocate -- but nevertheless, people who make personal attacks are supposed to receive that standard warning. And accusing Mr. Blanning of acting in bad faith does count as a personal attack.
I am aware that you feel as though you have not been treated well. I'm sorry if I've contributed to that feeling, but I was following policy in giving you the warning.
Please let me know if you would like further clarification on anything I've just said or if you want to discuss this further. I don't want you to walk away from this with a bad taste in your mouth.
I'm sorry, but I still disagree. A personal attack, in my opinion, is an ad hominem statement. So if I said something like, "you're probably the kind of person who doesn't have the good sense to recycle," that would be a personal attack because it's irrelevant to the matter at hand. When one feels one is treated poorly, however, questioning the motives of the other person is not a personal attack, in my opinion. Bad faith is an important fundamental to any pleading by an offended party -- when the action is suspect, then the motives may well be suspect, too. In my opinion, when someone's actions are in question, addressing the bad-faith motive is directly relevant and not in any way a personal attack.Jeff Fenstermacher23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that you disagree. We're getting down to a slight difference in definitions here, so I'm not sure that we're actually going to come to an agreement on this point. But good luck with getting an advocate; I hope that you can work all of this out. Hbackman23:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The french community ask the suppression of Eddy Onix for the reason vanitous and vanitous article. You' had the right intuition with the translation machine...--87.64.15.3108:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite understand what you're trying to say in the first sentence... I speak a little bit of French -- if that's your native language, would you like to try to explain it in French?
Je ne peux pas comprendre ce que tu veux dire dans la premiere sentence... je parle français un peux -- si le français est ta langue autochtone, veux-tu essayer de l'expliquer en français?
Really? Okay, you're clearly more involved than I was. Sorry if I inappropriately reverted, but I saw the same message slapped on several talk and user pages and previous vandalism warnings on Jaleelmalik's talk page and assumed vandalism. If you think that the messages should be reinstated, by all means do so. Hbackman05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Vandalism is frustrating, I know, but if you think about it and realize that these people really don't have a life if they're getting their kicks from writing silly stuff that's just going to be reverted in a minute or two, it makes it much easier to keep your temper, especially when they're going after your personal pages. ;) Hbackman05:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Thanks for taking it reasonably -- that's a rare reaction to a NPA warning, and it's really gratifying to see. :) Happy editing! Hbackman05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... his account has been registered for quite a long time. That sure makes him an experienced user... instead of butting in to conversations that do not concern you, I suggest you read through my comment on his talkpage. I dont like double standards. I'll be curt with him as long as I need to. KI15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you are slightly being uncivil, and I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks or take part in edit wars. — nathanrdotcom(T • C • W)23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The longer you're curt, the worse the situation will get, in all likelihood. You certainly aren't going to make any friends by being incivil, curt, and antagonistic (all of which vibes I'm getting from you, albeit not as strongly as I've gotten them from some other people). But if you want to be left alone, I'll leave you be. I hope that you learn to interact with people in a more polite and communal manner, though, because if you don't you're really most likely to gradually alienate yourself from the community until you're tired of dealing with us and you leave. Hbackman03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People are weird... I don't understand why they get their kicks out of vandalizing, but whatever. I'd love to help with the article, but school is crazy right now and I don't usually have time to check up on my watchlist, let alone do anything productive... maybe when things settle down, if you haven't finished with it I'll lend a hand. :)
Yeah, finals are keeping busy too, but of course I'm doing anything but study, speaking of which, never mind Mental Health, look at ADHD. It's enormous, and it's chaotic. Cleaning that article is an epic amount of work that will be undone almost immediately, because we don't finish what we start. Just for fun, maybe I'm going to just start adding nonsense sections with sentence fragments and wait for someone to add a word. If you have time, check my user page for my current projects. (Patrick16:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, by all means Hbackman, please look into the 1977 book "The Lincoln Conspiracy". It is all in there, what was stated above in my edit AND AT THE LINCOLN TALK PAGE!...Also then look to see how my dear friend Rklawton has been so kind...so fair,...ohhhh!..he is soooooo NPOV (in his mind)b towards me at every edit I have made regarding Lincoln at every turn....please do?, also
you have my Rabbi's blessings to do so.
(Cathytreks18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not quite sure what your rabbi has to do with anything, but I appreciate his/her care for my intellectual curiosity.
No offense intended, but frantic runon sentences and such do tend to undermine one's credibility on the Internet (or at least the serious parts of the Internet, which I will admit tend to be few and far between ;) ). You might have a better shot at not being blown off by people if you cut out the hyperbole and caps lock. Then again, if there's serious evidence against your claim -- such as, apparently, a recent picture of Lincoln in his tomb (but maybe I was misinterpreting that bit; I'm not really familiar with this issue) -- it's going to be pretty hard to get people to agree with you. I do have to say that this comes off as pretty conspiracy-theoryish, which is going to make a lot of people immediately skeptical.
Perhaps I'll pick up the book over summer vacation. Thanks for the recommendation. Is there any more recent scholarship than 1977, though? Generally people give more credit to more recent work.
I thought you were taking control of things and someone else stepped in and did a lot more than what you said was needed. What is the meaning of this and why is he not credible enough to be on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Advisory (talk • contribs) 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is "in control" of any one article. The ideal of Wikipedia is consensus and community collaboration, so it's perfectly normal and acceptable (and indeed, in this case quite desirable given the state that the article was in) for multiple editors to work on an article at once. Also, what I suggested was needed was just the least required to get the article up to a bare minimum standard for Wikipedia articles. Suggesting those changes wasn't meant to imply that no other changes were necessary. Most articles here evolve pretty constantly. It's unlikely that the article will ever reach a "finished" or "final" state -- although it will gradually have fewer and fewer places that really clearly need editing, someone will probably always be able to find something that s/he believes is worth changing in some way.
I assume that the second part of your question is meant to refer to the question of notability. The first places that you should look are Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO. Those lay out the guidelines for notability pretty straightforwardly.
I would also suggest getting involved in a broader range of articles and projects on Wikipedia. Poke around, find something else that interests you, and start editing there, too. It seems that you may be strongly involved on a personal level with this article, and it can be tough to try to learn objectively about Wikipedia policy when you're seeing it applied to an article that you're really attached to, especially when it's being applied in what may seem to be a negative way. Getting more experience in other areas of Wikipedia will help you to learn the ropes without being so concerned about the consequences for any particular article.
Hope this helps; let me know if I can clarify anything or help you out with anything else! :)
--
Thanks again for the reply. I highly appreciate it. I'm new at this but have been using Wikipedia for years to find userful information quick. So if you don't mind me asking a question that probably sounds dumb: how did you send that message to me that you did? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Advisory (talk • contribs) 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I just posted a message on your talk page. Whenever someone else edits your talk page, you are alerted to the change.
Speaking of talk pages, you can sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This is a good thing to do because it makes it clear to people that you've written a comment, and it lets them know when you made it.
I was just looking around at your user page after I aimlessly clicked on it off the Kyle Peavley talk page and thought I'd stop in and say hi. I'm an English major too and read Bleak House about a month or two ago for my Victorian Literature class. Please tell me you're reading that for a purpose and not for fun! :) Love Dickens, but man, can that guy write...A LOT. Metros23220:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay English majors! :) I did read Bleak House for a class (a Dickens seminar... five Dickens books (I guess we actually got through more like four and a third) in ten weeks... so fun but SO much work, LOL), but I probably would've gotten around to reading it for fun sometime if I hadn't read it for class. I'm actually writing my paper for that class on Bleak House... my brain is tied in so many knots right now...
So if you think Wikipedia is a "piece of shit," why are you spending your time and effort around here? I don't mean to be insulting; I'm genuinely curious. If you think that the site is stupid, wouldn't your time be better spent on something that you enjoy and that doesn't anger/frustrate you? Hbackman 02:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
He's an angry sockpuppeteer and I think he thinks he's trolling. Spamming my name (which is on my userpage) all over his talk pages is his way of getting back at me. Check out his sockpuppet list, it's not half bad. RasputinAXP c03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought it was probably trolling, but sometimes I enjoy trying to get disruptive people to actually try to rationally consider their actions. Most likely a pointless waste of effort in almost every case, I know... *shrug* somehow it still amuses me. ;) Hbackman03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Dickens at the blacking factory, it would be no bad thing if you were to drop in a ref, as the article missed Featured Article precisely because of lacking inline refs. Fraid Dickens' life comes under "well-known facts" where I come from, so I don't have proper refs to add myself. JackyR | Talk13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll put that at the top of my "to do" list and get to it next chance I have. I've got one question, though, if you could help -- my source right now is actually the mini-biography at the start of my Penguin editions of his works, and I'm not quite sure how to go about citing that... do you have any idea? Should I just get a standard Dickens biography out of the library that mentions the blacking factory and cite that? Thanks! Hbackman00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not the foreword -- it's like, you open the front cover and on the very very first page is a miniature biography. That probably counts as a foreword, though, I suppose. ;) Thanks for the help! Hbackman02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey people - what do you think that we should really show some dialect, that is doublethink, and contradictions in this article, my leading the readers to read, if they want - a list of contradictions. I think it would add some spice to this article? Tell me what you think - because I have the list on my Wikipedia user page... I hope you won't mind the list of contradiction in the doublethink article? Please reply on my user talk page...thanks--Lord X20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
Hey, thanks for writing. I, too, am American, but I'll add I'm an extremely strong proponent of the idea that, if the punctuation is not as would be correct within a quote, it should be outside the quote marks (it's pretty much all-inside for Americans and all-outside for the British). For example, when I see US media usage of commas within quotes in a list of titles, it really rankles me, given that each title does not include closing punctuation (basic text precludes italics, for example, so a US list of films in order of box-office receipts might read, "'Pirates of the Caribbean 2,' 'Little Man,' 'You, Me and Dupree,' and 'Superman Returns'"—but, when you look at the titles extracted from sentence form, there is no punctuation, so it should not exist within the quote marks). I feel the same about direct quotes—if the sentence ends in a manner that's demonstrably different from the quote, any differing punctuation should reside outside the quote marks. Call me anal... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c)06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe we're just going to disagree on this one. ;) I'm always really rankled when I see punctuation outside of quotation marks -- probably due to the (I think) aforementioned drilling into my head of "punctuation inside quotes" during middle and high school. It's my impression that people generally understand that final punctuation inside of quotes is often added so that the quote will fit grammatically into the sentence. They are not going to think that the actual title of a movie is Pirates of the Caribbean 2,. Hbackman23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hbackman!
You've indicated through various means (a userbox, membership in a category, etc) that you are part of the Wikipedia LGBT community, or are interested in Wikipedia's LGBT related pages. Welcome!
You may not know that Wikipedia has both an LGBT Notice Boardand an LGBT Studies WikiProject. If you haven't yet done so, take a look at both of them. They sorely need attention and participation!
Some things on the "To-Do List" that merit particular attention include:
Please feel free to participate in any or all of these activities! And if you feel like it, add yourself to either the Noticeboard Members or the WikiProject Participants - or both!
Glad you're a part of Wikipedia - and Thanks!
This invitation posted here by SatyrTN -- talk Please remove it if you so desire.
Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.
wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.
Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.
Hey, thanks for the reminder, I normally do use "subst:". But did you know there are bots that go around doing that so you shouldn't have to? -THB00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Yeah, I do know that there are bots, but this is my way of allowing myself to use Wikipedia for really short breaks from work so that I don't get engrossed in something huge and spend 30 minutes doing this instead of working. ;) Hbackman00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I did not realize it put a burden on the server and thought that was just how you did all templates (Duh!). I will do as you asked in future. Yours, Ruhrfisch03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. God only knows when I'll be able to get back to it myself. ;) (If you want to translate it further than I've gone you're quite welcome to do that, too.) Hbackman04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hbackman! I know it's been quite sometime since you've edited. I do hope you'll see this cup of tea! I just wanted you to know that your contributions are valuable to making Wikipedia what it is, and I do hope you'll participate with a new edit or article. Thank you for your contributions - past and future! SarahStierch (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hbackman! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
Hi Hbackman! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!
Get involved by:
Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —