903M

Please be nice.

adoption

I have a few adoptees who are challenging in various ways, and I have to think how to rescue them from various situations. Because of this until recently I said I didn't need any more adoptees (I have seven). But if you promise to be well-behaved and not cause me much trouble, I'd be glad to :) Sticky Parkin 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia rules

-articles like this don't usually last long on wikipedia mainspace, so I took the liberty of moving it to User:903M/Wikipedia_rules. Did you know that by writing User:903M/name of page in the double brackets, you can create pages in your own userspace for tinkering with anything you are working on?

The reason why articles about wikipedia rarely last is that the ones already about them are quite thorough. So if you can't find the facts you wanted to include in the articles Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, you might consider contributing to them. Sticky Parkin 03:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to sleep now, don't get in trouble while I'm gone.:) Sticky Parkin 04:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Provisional Editorial Council

Sure, I'll join. Who are the other members? --harej 05:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

90210:)- I suggest that you discuss who is going to be a member or provisional member, on the article's talk page so the other editors know the plan. I suspect by the panel of seven, people meant it to be of quite senior editors (as in been here a very long time) or something like that. Sticky Parkin 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting up your own thing rarely works because people think people doing so are busybodies, here to work some sort of agenda on wiki, or going over the heads of admins etc. I would seriously advise you to stay editing topics in the main encyclopedia space primarily, as I think you're doing, and discussing article content, especially as a new user. This doesn't mean I think you're being 'bad' by doing this, just that there's a pecking order on wiki. You can see part of what happens to those with strong opinions about how wikipedia should be run, on User talk:Abd. Of course, I could be wrong and you're welcome to try these things.:) Sticky Parkin 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm an adoptee of Sticky's as well! Wanna shake? (Zaps hand, chars it.) Oops, sorry! Cyborgs have a hard life! See ya later, New Addition!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS

I have had some trouble in the past. I used to be alot more AGF than this till this happened.

OH YES she does!

Well, a pleasure. When you need comic relief, I'm your person!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 07:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nooo

Please don't edit war, [1] or do stuff to prove a point. You will just get in trouble, edit something about pokemon or something lol- just joking, of course you can edit these articles, but there's no need to edit war. At some point you have to cut your losses, before you start having a go at someone, and have a rest from whichever particular article it's happening on, or try and compromise with those there rather than force your changes with a war. That won't work as a long term strategy as there's always people who will revert you. I say this as your adopter giving you advice. Sticky Parkin 02:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just a website, no need to get upset.:) And if you are upset, there are more constructive ways of channeling your feelings on wikipedia and off. Sticky Parkin 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's notice board discussion

Hello, 903M. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the "Provisional Editorial Council" notice on your user page. The discussion can be reached by following this link: WP:ANI#Userbox claiming inappropriate WP credentials?. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the admin who started the conversation. I was really just trying to see if there was a relevant policy before I left you a message. I'm concerned that your userbox has the potential to confuse new users and I was planning on asking you to remove it. There really is no Provisional Editorial Council and it's considered, at least informally, poor etiquette to represent yourself on WP as having credentials that you really don't have. Again, I don't know if there's a policy on this, but I'd like to ask you to remove the userbox just the same. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification is helpful. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So pleased

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I was so pleased to see you resolve a conflict by being amenable and by clarification. This is what you needed in your editing. Keep it up!:) Sticky Parkin 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've emailed you. Sticky Parkin 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmm

If you look at the section that quote only occupies about a line. and it's followed by saying that Thad then supported McCain. Undue weight would be if that was the only thing said about McCain in the section, or if it was made into a paragraph or something. That section about McCain is very favourable. The only thing we really read about him in the UK is his age and health problems.:) Sticky Parkin 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that a well supported statement of fact would be better than one person's opinion. For example, documenting that Hitler committed war crimes rather than "Churchill said Hitler is a war criminal". 903M (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden article

903M, if you can find a citation where Biden acknowledges having a hair treatment or operation of some kind, I'll consider adding it. But your repeated edits so far are relying upon unreliable sources per WP:RS (an op-ed column, a commercial press release) and you are disrupting a very high-profile article for a near-trivial matter. And please learn how to properly format citations, just sticking a URL inside <ref></ref> tags is no good for an article like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:RS. It doesn't matter how many random websites on Google searches say something, or how many discussion boards talk about something. You need a scholarly or mainstream book or a reliable mainstream newspaper or magazine that does fact-checking or a statement from Biden himself. That's the way it works. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion -- keep your responses here, so that they aren't scattered. I'll watch for them.

Of the three cites you keep trying to put in:

• This Boston paper reference is an editorial opinion column, written by a well-known political opinion writer. Such columns are not treated as WP:RS, because they are usually not fact-checked and are usually skewed by the partisan motives of the writer. It's not the same as a regular news story by a regular reporter.
• This Times of London piece is also more of an analysis piece rather than reporting, although it's a bit better than the first.
• This press release is just some doctor trying to sell his hair loss services. Completely worthless as a reliable source.

Do you understand what WP:RS is and isn't? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the two surgeries, quote me the passage in the NYT article where it says so. I must be missing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

wiki

It seems Wasten Time R found it harder to read the link because your ref tag was slightly wrong in this version [2]. Some people (not saying WTR is like this) won't look at something if it takes them a bit of work to do so. It seems the two of you have sorted it out now and the article includes your info.:)

Next time, don't use the warning hand :) , except against a really obvious vandal or someone making extreme personal attacks. Sticky Parkin 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Sticky! You just used the warning hand and I didn't meet your criteria for the hand! :) Happy editing, Sticky! Thanks for the tips. 903M (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol that's true:) I suppose I was copying you- you're an inspiration.:) Sticky Parkin 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Track Palin

Talk:Track Palin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Track Palin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Substing {{welcome}}

Hi, I noticed your welcome notice at User talk:Efrym87 and just want to let you know (or remind you, whichever may be the case) that welcome templates should generally be subst'ed (see Template:Welcome#Usage). Best, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford

In the image's page itself, it says

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers

   * to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement." Strictly speaking, I wouldn't say this image is fair use by this criteria, and I agree with you it's unnecessary as unlike what the image's rationale says, we don't need something else to prove Ford is notable. But it depends whether you want to get in an argument about it.:) If people have agreed to it on the talk page, it might be too much effort to disagree and you mightn't get very far.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As it seems you can't stop lying, we'll keep arguing. I'm sure you'll jsut shout 'fuck you' at me again soon. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooo

Oh 903M, Thuranx is saying you broke the 3 revert rule, if so please revert yourself. You know that you should be well behaved.:) Think of your reputation and block log.:) Also you need to read WP:POINT in detail. In general as an editor, you have some good points to make when it comes to matters of content, but you need to somehow find a way of getting on well with other editors (even if it's just by sticking to bland subjects.) :) But I've not read everything yet so no doubt no-one in the discussion is perfect. Sticky Parkin 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! By one count I did but so did ThuranX. One of the reverts is reverting a false accusation of vandalism by TW so that doesn't count. But I will lay off starting this second. 903M (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if it makes you feel better, you're not the only one who apparently is bugging ThuranX. He's moved a comment of mine on Talk:The Dark Knight (film) several times, because he thinks I was rude where I put it, even though it was clear that I was going off on another point and not his. He seems like a really touchy guy. Just wanted you to feel better that you're not alone in having to deal with this guy. If you want to respond, feel free to leave me a message at User talk:Anakinjmt 24.247.4.169 (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He just said it was late where he is and he is going to sleep. In the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia, I will voluntarily cease editing the article in question while he is presumed to be asleep, as well as the talk page and any noticeboard discussion. 903M (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've stayed cool for a fair bit of this dispute. That's pretty good work for a greenhorn. It seems ThuranX is normally prone to a bit of temper, I won't be shocked if he's shaken you up a little. It's quite possible that he'll have a clearer head after sleeping on it, so don't panic. You should do the same. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion on WP:ANI

Hello 903M! :)

As i have a small interest in whatever happens at WP:ANI (And especially into the somewhat larger discussions: those tend to be more complex or at least about something that requires a somewhat more lengthy discussion) i ran into the section you started there. First of: Don't worry to much about ThuranX. He tends to have quite some temper, and at times he is simply not assuming Good faith or even thinking about even the basics of the Civility guideline. This case looks likewise as your discussion with him on its own shows that your intention was not to insult.

For now it looks like ANI is chit chatting about the issue in a way that i think will not provide you with a real answer to the questions you asked, so allow me to try my best to answer them on your talk page, instead of over there:

1) What is a personal attack?

A personal attack is when an editor starts commenting in a negative sense about a contributer making an edit, as opposed to talking about the edit itself. If i would start posting racism or threats at your user page or anywhere else, that would be clear personal attacks. Note that it is not really possible to give a clear definition about what personal attacks are, as they tend to be very divers. Closely related to the personal attack is the WP:CIVIL policy that more or less tells what behaviour is acceptable on Wikipedia. If something is a clear violation of that policy it is virtually always a personal attack.

2) Can you ignore a talk page discussion by just claiming "personal attack"?

Yes he can. There is no rule whatsoever that dictates that a user has to react to whatever form of communication. If the user decides to remove each and every message you post on his or het talk page from now on, there is no way of stopping him. However this does NOT give someone a warrant to just do what he or she wants. Ignoring communications is quite uncivil, and may rightfully backfire at any time. If you raise a valid issue about the users behavior or edits and the user ignores you and continues it, then you can raise it in the respective reflection area. (Be it WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:DR or any other section). There is one special occasion: If a user seems to decline any communication (and/or) seems to specifically follow you around/targets your edits that will fall under harrasement which is a serious issue, which can lead to indefinite blocks.

3) Isn't free use much preferred over nonfree use. Nonfree use used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary?

I am virtually not working in the image section, and i assume you know more about that section then i do. But yes, nonfree images should generally only be used in case no free alternative exists. And even then the usage of nonfree images is limited.

And now before i end this, my compliments for staying so WP:COOL throughout this entire issue. I can see from your edits that you are doing a fine job, especially for such a new user account :). Don't let issues like this get to you; While most times wikipedia is a nice cozy garden, at times there is still a thunderstorm. And in case your worried about the issue at ANI: Know that civility warnings have been given to people for less dramatic and rude comments. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I think your quite a nice example of people clearly eligible for this barnstar.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For your similarities to a block of ice in a situation where many would resemble chili con carne, I award you this barnstar. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, 903M! :)

		Award of First Success
		I am very pleased to see you having some success at last, with others recognizing your qualities. Keep it up, you have begun to learn some of the trick of staying impeccable so no-one can touch you.:) Sticky Parkin 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. People tend to display barnstars and awards like this, if they like them, by copying and pasting the code onto their userpage. Sticky Parkin 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A redo of the user page will be done along with moving the barnstars! Thank you! 903M (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright concerns

Hi. I note that you have listed an image at the copyright problems board and wanted to drop you a line to let you know that images are no longer handled there. In most cases, if you feel that violation is blatant, you should tag the image for speedy deletion with {{Db-i9}}. If you are uncertain, you should list it for investigation at possibly unfree images. In this particular case, however, it seemed that Wikipedia:Non-free content review was the proper home, and I have opened a section there, copying your comments. It can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:Timehenryford.jpg. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Henry Ford. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Nard 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• You've been reverting other editors for almost a week. Do it again and you will be reported. -Nard 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting copyright violations. I only seek a scholarly Wikipedia that doesn't break the law. 903M (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

YOu have again violated 3RR. This time, you are reported. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:GSK

For the last 7 years I've used this name (3 being on Wikipedia), no trouble has come from it. I'm well aware of GlaxoSmithKline, and quite frankly, I don't care. It's not like I'm going around calling myself GlaxoSmithKline. If I was, I can see the problem, but since I'm not, I'd like to request that you leave this alone. You're the first to bring it up during my entire stay at Wikipedia, 903M. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on Henry Ford. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=I have always been polite but others have noted that ThuranX is difficult to work with. I have been blocked for violation of 3RR. This block is in error. 3RR specifically exempts reverts because of copyright violations. There is a questionable image, 3 editors note that it is not permissible non-free use. To resolve the matter, I've submitted a report for determination. In the interim, we must not add this image so that Wikipedia won't be in violation of copyright rules. ThuranX not only kept putting back the image but he violated clear instructions not to remove the "possible copyright violation tag." Even an uninvolved editor who is very experienced in copy editing defended me in saying that 3RR exempts reverts to remove copyright violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=239926717&oldid=239925667 In the spirit of good faith and noting my continued politeness, please remove the block. I will voluntarily not edit for at least 18 hours, probably longer. By refusing to remove the block, you are feeding the frenzy of ThuranX, whom others have noted to be very hostile and rude.

• • • If you refuse to unblock, please shorten the block so that you can correct the block record. I was not edit warring. At most, you could say that "editor attempted to remove possible copyright violations and exceeded 3RR".}}

You were unrelenting in your assertion that the image should be removed, and went way over 3RR. Did you investigate the "copyright not renewed" aspect? I know this is an obscure part of the US Copyright law, but that doesnt excuse your ignorance. Do you intend to edit-war further? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that three people saying it is "inappropriate fair-use" is not the same as three people saying "copyright violation". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but inappropriate fair use is, technically, a copyright violation. Fair use is an exemption from copyright, so when fair use is inappropriately used, the exemption from copyright is nullified, therefore inappropriate fair use is a violation of copyright. -kotra (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has always been claimed to be free of any copyright, so anyones opinion on whether it meets our fair-use guideline is missing the point. i.e. the opinions supporting 903M where mostly irrelevant. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would say that. The image in question was claimed as fair use for a long time, and only was changed to public domain half an hour or so ago. It was not claimed to be free of copyright, it was claimed to be fair use. These are very different. -kotra (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; 903M's actions made more sense after you'd pointed out that I'd misread that part of this history. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just glad it's been resolved. -kotra (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at my edits, you will see that I am always very accommodating and polite even when the other person is rude and harsh. I don't intend to edit war. The current block record also is very misleading. Months from now, this page will be in the archives but the block record will remain and people will think I was edit warring when I was, in fact, trying to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations. So if you kindly reduce the block, I will not disappoint you. You could also correct the block record with something like "editor was trying to remove copyright violations which he thought was exempted from 3RR". Your kind unblock (coupled with my voluntary self block for quite a few hours) would be appreciated. Thank you. 903M (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"To protect Wikipedia" is the most often given reason for edit warring. I agree with the blocking admin that you were edit-warring, after you were notified that it was being reviewed[3] and continued after Nard the Bard had confirmed it wasnt a copyvio.[4] The block log is accurate, but provided you are happy to steer clear of Henry Ford and these Time images for a day or so, then I am happy to unblock. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. Unblock would be motivating because then I would self impose a rest/informal block. Someone else provided a link to show that the image was renewed but that many Time images lost copyright protection. However, the details are not important as I intend to give it a rest and seek definitive answers first. So even if it turns out to be a copyright violation, I'll let others violate it while I seek the answer in black and white. Please correct the block record at least with a wimpy statement saying "editor was reverting what she thought was a copyright violation, which is 3RR exempted". Thank you. 903M (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that this user honestly was acting in good faith, and was logically lead to believe by the unmet criteria of the fair use license that was used for the image in question that they were removing a copyright violation, and thereby exempt from 3RR. It now, after the fact, appears that the image is actually in the public domain, so technically the user was violating 3RR. However, the user was acting with good intentions and was actually, as far as I can tell, exceedingly polite in the dispute, if perhaps a bit too adamant. And since blocks are preventative measures, not punitive, I recommend that the user's block be shortened or unblocked altogether. This was just a misunderstanding, I think, and any perceived or real harm to the project appears to be resolved. -kotra (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

903 babs Please don't block yourself from editing, there's no need, though have a rest if you want of course. Some people have admired your qualities, and you've learned more about the dangers of edit warring but it's nothing which many other editors haven't gone through, and you can easily fix it. Well I could if it were me, I don't think I've ever gone over one or two reverts, but I know some people have a more pugnacious nature than me and don't just move on to a different article.:) Some people really struggle to stay within 3rr/not edit war, but they eventually learn to restrain themselves a little, so you will manage to do it if you try. Try to avoid starting threads on AN/I or being the subject of one, as it is one of the heights of WP:Wikistress and will just stop you having fun. Sticky Parkin 14:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Sticky Parkin here: dont worry about the block log. A few months from now, the block entry is truly irrelevant, except as an example of a learning experience. Tiptoety was appropriately jumping on what was a slow running edit war that appeared to be escalating out of control quickly, and it was undone as soon as we had worked out the copyright issue, and as soon as you had clarified you were not intending to continue the revert in light of the fact that you were aware that the copyvio exception of 3RR no longer applied. The take away message is never edit war withe another editor who apppears to be a good faith editor, even if you think they are wrong. Take it to a noticeboard, and leave them to take the necessary action, as uninvolved opinions are the way to avoid any controversy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

quick note regarding adoption

Hi this is just a courtesy note to say that I'm talking about you here lol User_talk:Xenocidic#help_with_an_adoption_matter. I am very happy being your adopter, but I think ideally we need someone else to help out in the 'mornings' simply because we are not awake at similar times. I wake up to see you've had problems and I've not been there to stop you running into them. So I suggest we have a co-adopter or someone else to help you, so if you start having problems someone can see what's happening and step in before it escalates. Sticky Parkin 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kotra has suggested User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult. He sounds like someone similar to me that I could recommend:):) I thought he could help us out in the hours (most of them) when you're editing but I'm asleep. But it's up to you.:) Sticky Parkin 23:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It also is up to Bookkeeperoftheoccult, of course. -kotra (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course.:) What I meant is I didn't feel I could approach him without discussing it with 903. But if there's two of us hopefully it won't seem such a big step for him to start the adopting. If not, we'll just have to ask around some more.:) Thanks for your suggestions, Kotra, you've been very helpful. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. No problem. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr.10%

Thanks. Any Pakistani you spek to will tell you the same.--Streona (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Adopter/WP:MOS

regarding adopters- It's up to you. You're up at the time so hopefully you'll come across someone you like the look of, check through their contribs to see they're quite active and usually edit at that time. There's a list of adopters here Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters but if you pick one of them make sure they're frequently editing between 03:00-09:00 GMT/Universal time.

As regards the lead of an article, WP:MOS slightly addresses your query.

"If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand for example—the title does not usually appear verbatim in the main text. If it does, it should not be in boldface. For example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:

   A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus its frequency."

I think it could be argued that some of the ones you're discussing are not purely descriptive (used only on wikipedia.) For instance I can see that normal people might say "2008 Olympics".

The reality is that most articles' titles are bolded in the lead. Have a good comb through WP:MOS and Wikipedia:Lead section to find policy that explains your changes if people query them. It may be that what you're wanting is a slight change to the policy Wikipedia:Lead_section, in which case discuss it on that policy's talk page, rather than directly changing it. I don't know if you'll have much luck changing what's standard practice on wikipedia, although you could try implementing your changes one by one, as you are doing, and seeing if they 'stick'. It depends how strongly you feel about this issue, or whether you want to edit something else that might be less likely to cause an argument.:) Sticky Parkin 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving stuff around in articles

Did you see what Wasted Time R wrote and understand what he meant? "you lost the citations too, instead just putting hardcoded footnote numbers in. You must have copied-and-pasted from the rendered article instead of from the edit version of the article."

Unless you click on 'edit' and copy and paste the text you want in/from there, and if you instead just copy from the normal view of the article by a non-editor, you lose the ref. code tags which make the footnotes form. I've done that myself- it's easy to do. Hope this helps. You chose a high profile article again, it seems.:) Sticky Parkin 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi 903M

We have had a rough time, haven't we? Blocked, unblocked. I just want to say, I have all the sympathy in the world for you. Everything was all hunky-dory for me until I put a little prank up on my UP. I had my userpage blocked from editing. Sometimes, people just take WP too seriously. I hope I don't sound cynical but sometimes some SUPAH-SERIUS admins are just so happy with their fancy silver-coated mops, they want people to treat this site like it is all uniform and under some kind of supreme dictatorship. So some days, people are gonna get you down. Just remember, take some WikiHappyPillz and avoid WikiUsercide. Wow, that was a long, drawn-out speech. Now to be silly, immature and idiotic.

BLERRRRRRRRRRRRRNRAGGLEFRAGGLENUMFRUMLUMDUMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEJHBKJHkjhfkjhkjghfgkhgkhgklsecretmessagelolufoundit itsproblyobviousanywayjkshgnkjdhgkjhdghkjdgkhsgklhsjdgkjhglkhddjks.

Happy editing, hope things aren't too rough for you, my (delete as appropriate) Wikibro/sis/thing/alien/LHC (we're in Sticky's family, remember).

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate}

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Flashdance has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. SMC (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

email

I emailed you the other day, at the gmail addy you gave me a while back. Just checking you received it? Not nagging lol:) Sticky Parkin 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I did. I suggest we don't rob the Pizza Hut in High Street because they have cameras focused on the till. (just kidding) 903M (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Just thought I'd mention that the McCain article has been mercifully stable compared to the Palin article. The main editors at the McCain article disgaree a lot, but we do try to thrash things out at the talk page rather than getting into fights in the article itself. Plus, please keep in mind that this article has been through a LOT of review, and is now a featured article, so major changes should really be made with great caution. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH

The question is about the term of Mr. John McCain in the U.S. House of Representatives. He began in 1983. Therefore, the section title and name of subarticle should be House career of John McCain 1983-xxxx. However, the current consensus of two says that Mr. McCain started campaigning in 1982 so the section should be "House career of John McCain 1982-xxxx...."

That would be a matter for WP:RS -for instance, I was able on Katy Perry to provide sources to say there was no 'e' in Kath"e"ryn. If you can show the New York Times saying that he began in 1983, then you win or at least get your point of view mentioned a little. Some things are harder to prove than others of course- things people see as obvious are rarely mentioned. But the best source is google news [5] when it comes to politics- look up whatever it is you need.

"the concept of truth or consensus? I say truth, first with great respect and consideration of consensus. "

I think this illustrates one of the probs you're having on wiki. On wikipedia, the rule is WP:V- verifiability, not truth. i.e. you have to prove it with WP:RS. If you want a change in policy you want to chat on the talk page of WP:V itself- but I would counsel against spending your time doing that unless you feel really strongly about it, as it could perhaps be spent in more productive or pleasant ways.:) What I mean about this being one of the problems you have on wiki, is you have your own feelings about the rules, which are strong enough for you to question them sometimes, rather than just playing the game,:) (this isn't a bad thing, necessarily.)

P.S. Featured or good articles are really already kept in hand by a group of editors. I've never got involved with those articles- it seems to be quite hard work for you. But then I've never got that involved on articles about current affairs etc. Sticky Parkin 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm touched, as I was just worrying about how few edits I make in article space when you gave me this barnstar lol:) I'm glad that last time I looked you were doing ok with the McCain articles and people were seeing your point. I think you may be wrong here though lol [6] I assume McCain is going to get in, which means effectively Sarah Palin is in (I have mixed feelings about that.:) ). I hadn't heard of Biden. We'll see. Sticky Parkin 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

If you seek advice, and don't know who to talk to, ask me. I am very sympathetic. Being called immature was the worst thing for me, but you have been blocked! I am surreal, too.

YINGTONGIDDLEISEKRETMASSAGEOOHDATFEELZGOODHKJHLJHHKHKJHLHKLKHHKHLHHKJHLSPIKEMILLIGANROGERWATERSDAVIDGILMOURCLUENOTRICKWRIGHTNIC

KMASONSYDBARRETHJGJHKGKJHGKJHGKJGKGKJG.

I leave you now. Ta-ti-ta.

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS

A bit of advice: When Sticky writes 'Noooo!', 'Noooo', 'NOOOO!' or 'NOOOO' as the header for her message, you are in for a bit of a shock.

opinion etc/your last few edits

I think that's an interesting point, but you're right you'd probably be making another war for yourself:) Steve Martin-doesn't it look like him lol?:) I advise you to leave them to the Biden article. And Obama won't win.:) Unfortunately, 'middle America' isn't ready to elect a person of colour to the presidency, IMHO. Sticky Parkin 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hello again 903M :)

I remembered reading this line on your talk page a week or so ago: "A redo of the user page will be done along with moving the barnstars! Thank you! 903M (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)". I initially wanted to respond to that but since i cleared my watchlist, i kind of forgot at what userpage i wanted to respond to that. Now that i finally figured what page it was (Thanks to this image! So little people have it that finding the correct one was a snap), here is a little overdate response i wanted to give: "In case you feel like redesigning your userpage, feel free to copy the templates i made for my own page. They should prove easy to adapt for your own needs, so in case you feel like altering the looks of your page, that might be a suggestion if you don't like coding :)."

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden edit

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joe Biden, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ERROR, I moved it to the correct section. 903M (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

903M, you still haven't learned basic editing, like moving stuff around in an article. You don't do what you did. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And, you don't have any consensus to create a separate "Health" section, which we usually don't do. See my comment on the talk page there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good example on Reagan. Ronald Reagan is an FA article and whether he dyed his hair or not is never mentioned in it. Why don't you go annoy those editors there with "content" and "disputed" tags on the article, and leave this one alone. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are "very reliable" sources on Biden, show me the one that says what specific year he did it in and exactly what procedure he had done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for resolution. We drop the "content" tag. We put out a WP:Requests for comment on the hair issue. We both agree to abide by whatever the majority of commenters say. How does that sound? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

editing

903, I know it seems easier to do this [7] and then put the section you want into the right place, but if you click on 'edit this page' at the top of the page, and find and move the section while in that window, doing both in the same edit, people won't think your edit is blanking or anything. Sticky Parkin 12:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

accusations etc

Well you know I agree with you on the hair front, I don't see why people wouldn't want to include something mentioned in WP:RS. If someone is accusing you of being a SPA, well I know you're not, as you have edited other articles/subjects. Perhaps edit some more articles, to 'prove' it- not that you should have to? You know I would just move on to another article lol but I appreciate that you shouldn't have to. Sticky Parkin 12:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya 903M. I don't see where I'm accused of being an SPA. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim McLean etc

I don't see why that crime has an article, but thats just my humble opinion. I wouldn't advise you to write about a news story unless it has been particularly well-covered in papers etc. Especially not just because you've seen others you think are poor- that would be WP:POINT. But there's no need to have a break unless you want to.:) Edit some articles that are more fun.:) Sticky Parkin 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just did. I think it may be Wikipedic but not Encyclopedia Britannican. 903M (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is interesting and enjoyed reading it anyway, and it has references.:) Sticky Parkin 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re; Moving pages

I left instructions at the help desk on how to do this yourself. Its actually REAL easy. As long as you are an autoconfirmed user (4 days and 10 edits) there is a tab at the top of every page that says "move". This brings you to a pretty self-explanatory dialog box, and all you have to do is enter a new name, and a reason for the move. If I can be of any more help, let me know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)