![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This looks like it's becoming tedious. Do you think it is worth getting the page protected? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you recently undid all of the changes I made to the Homosexuality in Roman Catholicism page, which in general does not seem neutral. I added details which added accuracy and reduced bias, such as the fact that one of the Roman Catholic priests arguing against the Church's teaching is, himself, a gay person. That's a pretty important factual detail, don't you think?
Admittedly I am new to Wikipedia, and some of the changes may have been unwarranted but what of the change above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68kgamer (talk • contribs)
Fair enough, but the section title is DEFENSE OF THE OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING, which is that homosexuality is bad. Please explain why this is not allowed in a section which exists to elaborate on the Church's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68kgamer (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
My discovery a few days ago: Derek Ridgers. Ugh. My discovery last night: Danny Flynn (printer). Ugh.
To the latter, a later edit by you: "Add COI tag for close involvement by bio subject."
They're both by this person and they both make lavish mention of the odd string "Ketchum Pleon". According to Middlesex University, "Ketchum Pleon" (a new name to me) is "a leading public relations consultancy and part of global public relations agency Ketchum". Or in plain English, an outfit that's in the spam business. I'd thought that PR people could at least string sentences together convincingly, but I suppose they have to find use for teenage interns.
But some of the above is mere guesswork. Just what is the "close involvement by bio subject"? Please divulge on Talk:Danny Flynn (printer). Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Incidentally, after I'd deleted the blatantly deleteworthy from the bloated article on Ridgers and done a bit of reading, I found that he eminently deserves a decent article. (Which reminded me of this matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Bink, perhaps you already noticed, but I finally created Miss Calypso, and another user nominated it for DKY. Just thought you'd like to know. Hope all is well with you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are you not an admin? Do you not want to be? Do you think there will be enough editors with whom you disagree to overset an Rfa? Are you waiting for someone to nom you? If the last, may I offer myself as someone who would nominate you? KillerChihuahua 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Belgian citizen not very active on Wikipedia. A few months ago, I noticed that the article about Detroit was totally biased. You were one of the people changing this. An user tried to makes changes impossible (constantly reverting) and was warned. He did it again and the part about the decline of Detroit is again almost invisible. This user also suppressed the warning on his own page. I do not have enough time and knowledge to change this but (as somebody wrote) this article undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. I hope you can do something. DidierC (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! I'm happy to have been of help on "The Awful German Language" article. EnglishTea4me (talk)05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern about WP:COATRACK. However, the title of the section includes causes of his overthrow and there is strong evidence(check details on the talk page) Black Friday was a major turning point in his overthrow of power. If you can, please help modify the text such that it also addresses your concern. --Kazemita1 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This source you mentioned [2] is actually a non-compliant mirror of History of Waldorf schools. Hgilbert wrote History of Waldorf schools, so it appears he cited an article, which plagiarizes Hgilbert's own work. I don't know why he didn't recognise his own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad to be the first of what I suspect will be quite a few supporters.
Good luck! Kurtis (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit on West High School(Utah)? It was a legitimate piece of information. I would like an explination please. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance and help. For future contributions, can I ask advice? I am in a creative writing class now and I would love all the writing advice I can get. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your help anyhow. Cjohn0821 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohn0821 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just been through hundreds of edits of yours doing updates for the Schools Wikipedia and I thought I should acknowledge that by and large you do a pretty good job. --BozMo talk 12:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thank you for your fixes to Michelle Shocked .. it's been a weird day. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. As you noted, User:JodieSharp added a promotional link to an article which you reverted out and left a message on the editor's talk page ( User talk:JodieSharp ). It turns out this editor (whose only WP contributions have been promotional in the last two days) added the promotional links to many articles. Cf. Special:Contributions/JodieSharp. I reverted them out -- pending any further viable explanation or disputation. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
Hi Binksternet. I'm sorry to report that I have closed your request for adminship as unsuccessful. You earned the support of many editors, but unfortunately there did not appear to be sufficient consensus for adminship at this time. You are obviously a very talented Wikipedian, and I hope you will keep up the good work; I would not at all be surprised to see a subsequent request for adminship close with overwhelming support. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, 28bytes (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everybody who put forward thoughtful and considered support and oppose votes. I will keep doing what I do on Wikipedia, and we will see what the future holds. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Problem with enemy casualty figures according to Third Army After Action Reports is this: whereas figures on POWs are accurate and confirmed by Fuller, figures on enemy soldiers killed and wounded are impossible. Between June 1941 and December 1944, Germany lost 202,000 killed fighting the Americans and British in North Africa, Italy and north-west Europe together (Hastings). With deaths in 1945 the number of German fatalities in these theaters increased by another 100,000 at maximum. It cannot be that almost half of all German soldiers who fell fighting the Western Allies (144,500 out of 300,000) were killed by Third US Army alone. If so, then what was the combat performance of all other Allied troops? Fuller's figures (47,500 of the enemy killed, 115,700 wounded by Third US Army) are more realistic, and thus should be mentioned lest the article contain obviously mistaken information. If information is too long for Patton's biography, then it's better to delete the whole paragraph and leave casualty records in the Third US Army article alone. Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A source correcting inaccurate information (Fuller) is not mere trivia. It's not just a matter of sources disagreeing, the problem is that one source (Third Army After Action Reports, accepted by Wallace) obviously exaggerates except as concerns enemy POW's. Besides, reference to Fuller is now just one sentence and considerably shorter than last paragraph before one. There should be no problem with the current wording. Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor brought you up on my talk page. I just wanted to let you know in case your ears were burning.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello... I'm looking for someone to re-assess The Age of Spiritual Machines an article about a book by Ray Kurzweil. I put a bunch of work into the page in the last month or so, expanded it a lot. I found your name by looking through "related changes" for the book, I think you had edited an article on Gordon Moore and it looks like you are very experienced editor with diverse but sometimes techy interests. Anyway if you have time please take a look. Otherwise not a problem. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering why you removed the link I added. Is the link inappropriate, or is the way I describe it that's wrong? Since becoming a wikipedia editor, I've tried to improve the "Life as a slave" section of the article, in particular by keeping the link to the Amanda Barker birthplace pages fresh (the pages have disappeared from the web and been moved several times). Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet,
Having noticed the COI badge on this entry for Ken Schaffer, I wonder if you could explain the basis for this designation despite there being numerous references to credible publications. Thanks.
Kibotoo (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)kibotoo
Hi Binksternet, thank you for responding. I'll trim the article according to your recommendations and resubmit. When I do so, is there a way I can refer to your affirmation of notability? Thanks! Matzohboy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Matzohboy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
is this user the same sockpuppet as this one? I ask because I saw the SPI link here. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You just added a comment and removed Beagel's comment.[4] Was that an accident? I was just about to add a support to his comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Stop policing my edits to the Music of Argentina page. There are several other uncited sections. The Electronica section, as it is, is entirely uncited in the refererence section, so if you're really going apply your judicious editing standards then erase the whole section. Otherwise, back off. I'm not promoting anything - I'm adding a much-needed update to a section of this article. John Henry Dale 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC) John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've cited the sources for my edits now.
Just because you don't know who the people involved with ZZK Records are, does not make them, as you so condescendingly described, "a non-notable group of people". Google ZZK Records. They're notable.If you remove my edits again I will report you for abuse.
John Henry Dale 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've initiated a dispute resolution based off of your abusive and overly-agressive policing of my good faith edits to the Music of Argentina page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Music_of_Argentina.23Electronic
John Henry Dale 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC) John Henry Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrydale (talk • contribs)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Music of_Argentina#Electronic".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC) DiscussionHello, there is currently a discussion at AN [5] about a disruptive IP editor with whom you have been involved.Jeppiz (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) New Map/MontageFirst off thanks for the new map!! The other one wasn't as good. However please refrain from removing the montage. Most people are satisfied with it! Thanks--Pollack man34 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
AE request resultPer this discussion at WP:AE, you are reminded of the importance of editing according to core policy on pages related to Waldorf education, broadly construed, and that failure to do so may result in discretionary sanctions being applied. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The image was removed from the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)Wikipedia site by Binksternet. The reason given by Binksternet was:
These comments by Binksternet are incorrect. The Shared Parenting Wikipedia site states that:
Therefore there is clearly a very good connection between the words "shared parenting" on the image and the "Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting). John Flanagan 31 March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 March newsletterWe are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms. A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Comment by Binksternet
Reply by John Flanagan, 3 April 2013: Your idea and my idea of what is spamming is obviously extremely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Hahaha! Thank you very much. I will let my bank know about this windfall so they can properly adjust my account. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)I hereby request the complete removal of this item from the Wikipedia web-site. It has been significantly edited by foreign editors with no idea about what they are writing about. Regards John Flanagan Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
DoubtHi, Binksternet. Some time ago I wrote a FA titled Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma. I was never very happy with the "Legacy" section. It's too short. There is series of books called "Os nossos almirantes" (Our Admirals) written by Henrique Boiteux. If I'm not mistaken, volume 5 (published in 1932)[6] has a chapter about Inhaúma. You'll find it under the name "Joaquim José Ignacio" (notice the extra "g" in Ignacio) or "Visconde de Inhaúma". I believe it begins on page 67[7]. There is also a following chapter that begins on page 135 titled "Centenário do Almirante Visconde de Inhaúma" (Centenary of Admiral Viscount of Inhaúma).[8] I wonder if you could take a look if the university library also has a copy of that book? I know I'm asking too much and I would be really grateful for your help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Going against consensusBinksternet, I greatly appreciate the passion and dedication that you demonstrate in your editing. You clearly are a veteran Wikipedian and are constantly making useful contributions. That being said, your most recent edit at Maafa 21 clearly went against consensus, as I demonstrated in my most recent edits at the Maafa 21 talk page. I have no doubt that you desire consensus, and of course, you are well aware of the challenges we have faced at this article in trying to achieve it. (I've had my own struggles, as you have pointed out.) In turn, please be more careful in the future not to go against consensus in your edits as well. Thanks for your understanding. God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Opinion SoughtHi - You and I have edited many of the same pages, and so I ask for your opinion. Yesterday's featured article on Thomas Kinkaid gives Kinkaid the credit for the victory at Surigao Strait, as the commander. My thought is that, of course, the credit goes to Oldendorf, and Kinkaid was one level removed. I made a small edit that got reverted by Hawkeye7, an esteemed author. If you have an interest, would you add to the discussion on my talk page? Thank you. JMOprof (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Common senseThanks for this edit. I tried to make the point that that line was completely unnecessary, but only you understood it. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please undo your revertI restored longstanding sourced and verifiable content deleted by COI editor David Starr of the Adi Da cult.[9] You reverted my restoration. Someone undid my restoration of longstanding sourced and verifiable content yesterday, on the erroneous claim that all sources must be on the internet. I replied and gave that editor a chance to respond over night if he had a response. He did not. So I restored the longstanding content. (Additionally, BLP only applies to living persons.) Could you please undo your revert? 64.134.235.59 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictionsA couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
could you please send me my edits backsorry I thought it was important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewunthird (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Madonna (entertainer)Inviting your opinion regarding Aicchik's continuous reversion and addition of a content which other users have vehemently opposed and Aichik him/herself has failed to provide relevancy and justification, except "its 4 years and she has to date" and calling you "ageist". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciateyour defense of the word "perceived" in the Men's rights movement article, I believe that this particular word was originally mine. However since my month's ban from the article has not expired I need to count on editors such as yourself to be there. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
World Trade CenterWorld Trade Center, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Secular Islam SummitHey, I saw that you got involved on the talk page today (thanks). As far as I understand, the edit war was not over the inclusion of Haddad's center for understanding, but over the relative amount of weight given to the positive and negative reactions to the summit. (Notice how one version has a paragraph of positive reaction followed by a paragraph of negative, while the other version has two paragraphs of negative reaction followed by a single paragraph of positive.) The mention of the center was probably an issue, but not the core issue that prompted the edit war, as far as I can tell. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
My tone on Madonna editsThanks for trying to help. You know how to diffuse a situation, some guys still don't;)--Aichik (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
BLP/N discussions - 3 clear examples to start, more if needed[10] on Anderson Cooper 3 Feb 2007 [11] Little Boots Jun 2009 [12] Luje Evans Aug 2011 ... [13] Elena Kagan Need more examples? Unless the discussion of a person's sexuality is key per secondary sources regarding the person's notability per se, or is self-attributed, it does not belong per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice of WP:AN discussionHello Binksternet, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! NoticeHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC) [14] — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Files missing description detailsDear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers. If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Regarding the Tzvi Erez page Edits - I am close to the matter and have come across court docs showing charges were dropped. I also think, that Erez is an incredibly talented classical pianist, and many users are interested in his discography which you have elected to remove. Discography of artists is not a marketing / promo tool. It tells the world what albums an artist recorded and released over time. Please consider and reinstate. Thank you. LaurenIpsum (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Hello - I was going to notify you about my creation of La Jolla Woman's Club, but I see that you (and Melanie) have already been in it! Let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
TurntablistHello , my name is Grandmaster Disk ,, better know to the world as DJ.DISK ,, i'am the original creator of the word Turntablist. I tried to edit my own word but you took it down ,, i'de like ot know why ? I created this word when i was 11 years old , i'am 42 now and all of sudden people want to take credit for my hard work ! Please i want to make this correct , how can i do this ? , Disk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdisk (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:CalebVHaynes-Amarillo1951.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after deathHello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP#Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Energy Tower and Midland TexasActually this is yours and your vandalistic friends last warning. Nothing that I have posted violates Wikipedia's policies. The only thing different in what I have done and what you and your vandals have done is that I have exposed the truth about a corrupt city government. Everything that I have posted is absolute verifiable fact. If you continue to harass me while speaking up for an entire community then you will be the one that will lose your editing priviledges. I've done nothing different than your and the people that you defend except to expose your corrupt tendencies. If you take away my priviledges for the reasons that you have stated then you must also take away your own priviledges and those of Uncle Milty, Atx1016, AV3553, Nuclear warfare. If your predatory harassment continues you will be reported and banned from WikipediaPerrys Conscience (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I will read that information, but there is nothing that I am doing any differently than you or anyone else who has been deleting the FACTS that I continue to add. My information is presented with a neutral point of view. Your buddies just don't like the fact that I am bringing to light the corruption that they are perpetrating on this city. Why don't you and your buddies have to abide by the same Wikipedia policies? I have done absolutely nothing that violates Wikipedia's policies of original research or neutral point of view. Just because you all keep wasting my time having to re-edit before I can learn how to site my references doesn't mean that my information is opinion and unreferenced. It simply means that Wikipedia's referencing technology is not easily figured out. I've noticed that you certainly haven't taken the time to call them on all of their unreferenced information. Why don't you do that? Why aren't you bullying and intimidating them for not siting and referencing their information like you've done to me? Why aren't you deleting their unreferenced information as you have done mine? Why aren't you bullying them and intimidating them for posting their "opinions" like you have done to me even though I haven't posted opinion? What I'd like to know is how much money have they paid you to agree with their lies and to disagree with my facts. I frankly don't care who you and all these other bullies think you are. I will not cower to your intimidation and harassment. Your actions are not supported by Wikipedia and do not follow Wikipedia's mission statement and intent. In fact your squashing of the facts and refusing to allow the community's voice to be heard is in complete conflict with Wikipedia's intent to honor truth and reality. You have been completely unfair and I will not let this go. Perrys Conscience (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Your welcome noteThank you for your welcome note on my page and pointing out a so-called edit war. Perhaps you can assist. Several editors have tried to create pages related to a US battle called the Doolitle Raid from WWII. However there are 2 administrators who don't like the pages and have unilaterally deleted every page created without any opportunity to 'reach a so-called consensus' on a talk page. We are creating pages to honor the contribution of war heros who risked heir lives in a landmark mission. Wikipedia is litttered with pages of people who are of dubious notability yet these pages survive. The Doolittle arcades are notable people and deserve to be discussed in this forum. Please warn these administrators that their opinions are not shared by others, and that these page will be recreated by those who recognize the notability of the Doolittle Raiders. Thank you. Doolittlefan (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
File source problem with File:TuskegeeP40.jpg![]() Thank you for uploading File:TuskegeeP40.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC) TPN wiki changesPlease clarify why the roll back. Changes were based on referenced TPN web-site and SPLC web-site. Original entry was out of date and/or inaccurate or unsusbtantiated. Cited text was inaccurate or incorrect. Please clarify specific changes that you considered "viewpoint". Kmita (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have entered each change one by one and specified in detail the reason for the change. I have also fixed or removed some of the broken references. Please review and advise if there are still issues with any of the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmita (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Your accuse me of edit warAccusing me of an edit war after revering first time changes to restore un-cited claims is rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Binksternet, thanks for catching the rest of those changes. Not sure the IP has seen the reply in Talk:Melissa Farley. Location (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a questionHi Binksternet, Wondering if you know anything about the logistics of opening an investigation (that's probably not the proper word) re tendentious editing?01:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 02:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
On another note... We are chipping away at beginning a conversation about policy change. I was thinking... only you, me and Gandydancer are able to offer an objective view of the BP talk page dynamics over a longer term. The recent brou - haha brought in a couple new editors who, being indies, can't be there everyday and being new, don't have the advantage of a bigger picture. That page is a fantastic case study for the problem we are attempting to address. It's one we three are quite familiar with, and i wondered if you might begin to think of summarizing your experience or take on things as a part of that case study? You can leave it anywhere that feels right - my talk page, here or here. The latter is probably best. I understand the vortex there and the desire to be doing almost anything else ;) so I thought a summary like this will take less time on your part but would really serve to advance the page itself, in the long run. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not like you ...Binksternet, you definitely know better than to make accusations like this. I'm sure that I can rely on your ethics to retract what was surely just a one-of-a-kind, heated moment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Improper RfC closure at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputesHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks muchThank you for your helpful comments at Talk:No worries/GA2, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionHello, Binksternet. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
|