User talk:CutOffTies/archive8

Carl Weathers

you can't disprove carl weathers isnt the strongest man alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.40.216 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

nhl94 page

yes I'll update it when they retire. I've been looking after this information for the passed four years on nhl94.com. http://forum.nhl94.com/index.php?/topic/3640-active-nhlprofessional-hockey-players-list/page__view__findpost__p__17927 24.89.71.210 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Angel's Landing Edit

Hi CutOffTies,

Just last week I visited Zion national park and hiked Angel's Landing for the first time. I have hiked all over the world and this is hands down the most terrifying hike I have ever done and I'm not alone. When you hike this trail, the FOCUS is DEATH. When you board the Zion shuttle, the operator tells you multiple times that Angel's Landing is highly dangerous and that deaths have occurred. As you do the hike, you are warned with signs on numerous occasions along the trail that people have died including a sign that reads "6 people have died here since 2005". And if you choose to eavesdrop or talk to people along the hike, you'll quickly find that everyone who does this trail is focused on the deaths that have occurred here.

This is not merely my anecdotal rambling either. See for yourself. Beginning typing "Angel's Landing" into Google. As you'll quickly notice, the 2nd and 5th search autofills are "angel's landing deaths" and "angel's landing zion deaths".

Your comparison of Angel's Landing to Half Dome is a good one and one that I used myself in assessing this trail. Also, as you'll see again, if you Google "Angel's Landing vs", the autofill feature will fill in "angel's landing vs half dome". Although these trails are comparable, going to the Half Dome wikipedia page, you'll see that there have been only 5 fatalities since 1919, whereas at Angel's Landing there have been more.

Or, are you thinking it would be a good idea to remove the death (or death references) section on the Half Dome page too? Sincerely, Lenschulwitz (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but again, I feel you need to cite sources that summarize the danger involved instead of just listing deaths. Merely listing deaths is sensational. Also, I'm not sure why you're telling me about your experience, as that is original research. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Check out my sources, I have already "[cited] sources that summarize the danger involved".

Also, I still don't follow your reasoning. Why is listing deaths on the Angel's Landing page sensational but listing them on the Half Dome page or other pages is not? These are not sensational sources either. They include the National Park Service, USA TODAY, and the Los Angeles Times. I recognize that death makes some people uncomfortable, but removing this knowledge simply because it makes you uncomfortable goes against Wikipedia's ideals.

Also, keep in mind that the National Park Service FAQ page doesn't report the true number of deaths because some of the deaths involved "suspicious activity", which is a nice way of saying that Angel's Landing is also a suspected murder scene. This fact is notable in itself, but I feel that sourcing the reported deaths is far less sensational than mentioning that suspected murders have occurred along the trail.Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All I am asking for is for some sort of context that goes along with listing the deaths. As I said in my original message to you, content that says how dangerous it is in comparison to other hiking trails would be good. Perhaps even listing the % of all hikers who have done the trail that have sustained serious injury (which I'm guessing is like 0.001%). A copy/paste from the NPS site with safety suggestions is not sufficient or encyclopedic. I gave a suggestion that if you can find a source, the risk could be compared to Half Dome, Mount Washington or Mount Kathadin - the Wikipedia article on Half Dome (or Deaths in 2011) is not my concern, nor did I ever say they were model articles (I haven't even read them!) --CutOffTies (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you have some very good ideas for this article and I would encourage you to implement them. If you feel that my additions have violated Wikipedia policy, please cite the policy and explain your reasoning as to why my additions are in violation of that policy. Thank you. Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I never thought your additions violated Wikipedia policy.. I just think there needs to be more information. You did a great job in providing cites for all the deaths so I thought you might be interested in adding more content to make it even better. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment, it means a lot. In your first edit, when you removed all of my citations, I was a little bummed seeing as they took a little bit of research to track down and reference. In the meantime, I'll contemplate ways I can make this article better. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it wasn't meant to negate your work.. also not positive if you know, but all revisions to articles are saved and can be easily restored. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcoming comment, and for getting me to finally create a Wikipedia-account. I don't know how much I'll contribute, other than acting upon it if I come across another instance of someone being branded as a racist without there being any sources supporting such a claim, and will try not to start any major edit wars. Schena85 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! --CutOffTies (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

General Zukov

I think someone may have copied and pasted your userpage info onto their own, see User: General Zukov. Kinda weird. I don't know if this should be reported to admins but I thought you should know. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.. I'm kind of curious how you figured that out, and really appreciate you letting me know! --CutOffTies (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He participated in a discussion that I've also participated in so I looked at his UserPage and his contribs - they don't match. So I clicked on the photos he said he created and they lead me here. Voila! Bluebonnet460 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I had also mentioned this topic at WP:AN#Attribution when I came across it. I was about to notify you, but you've already obviously seen it. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! Belated congrats on your successful RFA! --CutOffTies (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Boyd Coddington

• Hey, just to let you that I've roped in an Admin (see → User talk:Atama ←) who's well-versed in SPI to help out on the article page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DRAFT DODGER

Why do you keep changing my totally sourced, accurate and undisputed demographics of who actually served in Vietnam yet let these below undocumented statements that are totally opinion and possibly false remain unchallenged. I can only suspect that because the facts don’t conform to your anti-war bias you don’t want them included. Who actually served is as germain to this topic as anything else in this opinionated piece.

Here are some of the numerous undocumented passages in this article:

-- This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college.[citation needed] How many exactly is “Considerable?” Also, “including African-Americans” is this two or were there more? This statement adds nothing, is completely unsourced and is opinior with no basis in fact.

-- Large groups of draft eligible men publicly burned draft cards.[citation needed]

Again, “Large groups” – I would agree “some” publically burned draft cards but because it was illegal and punishable (by being drafted), proportionally it was not many that did it. The newspapers and TV publicizing those that did might have made it seem like “large groups” but it was a tiny piece of the draft cohort that actually risked it.

--Since the National Guard was slated only for domestic security, service in the National Guard guaranteed protection from deploying to Vietnam. Vocations to the ministry and the rabbinate soared, as divinity students were exempt from the draft.[citation needed] Doctors and draft board members found themselves being pressured by relatives or family friends to exempt potential draftees.

Is there some proof of any of this? I would point out that a few National Guard units were activated and sent to Vietnam including the California National Guard (didn’t go as units but individual replacements) but more famously, the Kentucky National Guard’s 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery which served in 1968-69 in support of the regular 101st Airborne Division. The Battalion's C Battery out of Bardstown lost 9 men killed and thirty-two wounded when North Vietnamese troops overran Fire Base Tomahawk on June 19, 1969. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States ) . This is history so this statement is obviously false.

-- in at least one case, a man who went to the movies, at the Biograph Theater in Chicago, every night on the week before the draft to eat buttered popcorn.[citation needed]

Talk about questionable and un-documentable passages. Was he trying to OD on popcorn? This statement is so ridiculous it needs no counter yet no one has challenged it?

-- During the Vietnam War, about 100,000 draft dodgers, in total, went abroad; others hid in the United States.[citation needed] An estimated 50,000 to 90,000 of these moved to Canada…

According to the definitive book on the subject, “Chance and Circumstance” (page 169) the total number of accused draft Evaders (Dodgers) was 210,000 with only 30,000 leaving the country. The TOTAL number of Deserters and Evaders total that went to Canada was about 30,000. Now that is sourced and this passage is patently false and greatly exagerated.

I would finally point out that in the 1972 Presidential election, Nixon ran on a platform continuing our involvement in Vietnam and won the election in a landslide with 60.7% of the popular vote and the fourth largest margin of victory in the popular vote (23.2%) in presidential election history. He received almost 18 million more popular votes than McGovern—the widest margin of any U.S. presidential election. McGovern, who would have had us out of Vietnam before the end of his Inaugural Speech, only won the electoral votes of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. This would certainly indicate that a “silent majority” didn’t want to abandon South Vietnam. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the Draft Dodger talk page. Note that I also removed the new comments to the bottom of the talk page, per the guideline at the top of the talk page. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now rewritten my comments to be more relevant and provided three stellar and unimpeachable sources. I notice you are quick to delete my well sourced information yet leave unedited some of the totally false, un-sourced and (in some cases ridiculous e.g. "eating popcorn") accretions made in this article. Why don’t you use your time editing these passages and leave mine alone; unless, of course, mine don’t conform to your obviously anti-war bias. As someone who was actually drafted and served an extended combat tour (earning a CIB) in Vietnam, I know a little more about both the Draft and who really fought that war than you will ever know.

I suspect you are aware that despite what is in this article, college deferments did not guarantee someone would not be drafted. Draft quotas were assigned by draft board and if they couldn't fill their assigned quota with 1-As, they had to reach deeper into the pool and in some cases even into II-S (which I was when drafted). I would also point out that when one man evaded, someone else, often less educated or advantaged and always less eligible, served in his place. Additionally, because many of the more capable natural leaders avoided service, we often had to settle for the LT Cally's of the world for leadership. Think of how many American lives could have been saved if leaders of Clinton, Cheney or Biden’s potential had done their duty. Isn't it ironic how correct Clinton was when he used to say that "it's the little guy who plays by the rules that always ends up taking it in the neck." My point, Draft dodging is also a crime against a person's fellow man and my conscience wouldn't let me "dodge" it to send someone in my place when I got my notice. You're Welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, I was removing your edits because I believe it contains synthesis and is unrelated to the article. How you're coming to these conclusions about me, and why you're sharing this other information is beyond my understanding, but also an issue I'm not concerned with. I said on the article talk page that I'm in agreement with removing the unsourced statements.

You may be interested in the discussions here and here. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

UMD criticism section

I am a little new to editing wikipedia, but I wanted to respond to the WP:Weight reasoning whereby you deleted the criticism section because of its sources. I wanted to make sure you were aware that included among the sources was a report by the National Labor Relations Board, an impartial adjuciations board, as well as a report by the Black Faculty and Staff Association at the University of Maryland. These two reports were both well-researched and put out by respected institutions.

I understand that a student newspaper is not a favored news source, though the Diamondback is ranked 8th best student newspaper by the Princeton Review. At any rate, there were actually two authors at the Diamdonback who were cited. The "bloggish" site also had two authors, at least one of whom was also incredibly well-researched and versed in the happenings.

Between these sources, I believe the section should be allowed to stand, particularly if it is given a disclaimer noting that these situations are relatively recent (though still valid to the understanding of the university and its functioning in a way that contributes to the historically long-standing study of labor relations).

Thank you for bringing this matter to talk and reading the relevant explanations. I would suggest bringing this matter to the article's talk page. To save time, you could copy and paste a lot of this message, though you should explain what content you're trying to introduce. I will respond there.

Regarding the sources, they are a little better at second look, but the real issue here is the undue weight and recentism. If you post on the talk page, I will respond and hopefully others will provide their opinion. We'll go from there. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I have moved the discussion to the article's talk page. Samtastic02 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ira Smith (baseball) Notability

I believe that the notability is already met. For college athletes, notability can be established by: Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame). Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

Ira Smith did win a national award, he won two Division 1 batting titles. Even in Major League Baseball, the player with the highest batting average has been crowned the Batting Champion since 1901. Also, as a finalist for the College Baseball Hall of Fame, one of the requirements to even appear on the ballot is earned verifiable national acclaim. There are numerous citations throughout the page, none of which are from a website of his personally, including the University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, College Baseball Hall of Fame, and other sites.Superman7515 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NARA blog post

I am blogging about our event at the National Archives. Let me know if you'd like me to use your real name or account name in picture captions, or if you'd rather be left unmentioned. The text of the draft blog post is at User:Dominic/Backstage Pass; feel free to make edits or suggestions. Dominic·t 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruppersberger Vandalism

I have responded to ALL your allegations on the page you pointed me to. I don't understand why you question my well sourced entries yet leave so many outright falsehoods and undocumented statements in the same articles unchallenged. I believe the problem is if you don't like a "fact" you challenge it yet if a falsehood conforms to your point of view it's overlooked. What other explanation can there be? In the words of Colonel Nathan Jessup (A Few Good Men): "Truth, you can't handle the truth!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning."

I only cited the following one reference for pointing out that the Congressman has Never served in the Military but could have inserted hundreds if that would satisfy you. My last edit only pointed out that he was born in 1946 which is already stated in the article and he Never Served which is well referenced. How does that meet the definition of "vandalism?"

According to Vote-MD.org at: http://vote-md.org/intro.aspx?state=md&id=mdruppersbergerca among several other references, Mr. Ruppersberger has NO Military service. If his Campaaign Manager, who obviously wrote this entry, wants to tout him being "a friend of the Service member," it is equally appropriate to point out he never served.

If you persist in in deleting my verifiable entry that the Congressman has NO Military service, I will report you for vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting negative content in an attempt to disparage subjects is vandalism. You have not provided a source about him not serving in the military, so it is original research. He hasn't served in the Peace Corps either, but would you insert that in the article? No, because it is not covered by reliable sources. Until you can find a source that covers the fact that he hasn't served in the military, it should not be inserted. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sera Cahoone

Hey dude, this copy comes directly from Sera, please stop modifying the page to the old text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkard883 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have proof that Sera or Subpop or whoever releases the copyright. I would give you instructions on how to release the copyright to Wikipedia, but it's a press release. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for a press release. Thanks and keep on making great music! I'm looking forward to her next album. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I get you proof? She is pretty adamant that this page get corrected. Unfortunately the Wiki page that exists is wrong and needs correcting.

Do you work for Wiki or are you just a Sera fan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkard883 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers.. so I guess I'm just a fan of her music. Later tonight I'll try to clean up your latest version to make it so that it's not a copyvio and looks okay. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be cool dude! She just wanted all the misinformation out (like Primrosa) and to correct some things about Band of Horses (like she only played on a couple songs, not in the band). I am going to make a couple last edits, and then would really appreciate if you could take a look to get rid of anything that might be a violation (we are just dumb musicians, not copy editors) ha ha! Thanks man. Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkard883 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sera spacing

Hey man, we added spacing as it is all jumbled and not easy to read. The way you have it makes it tough to view the differences in paragraphs. We are going to add the spacing back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkard883 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for the barnstar. I did not expect to receive any.  :) Sparkgap (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that red link. -- Avanu (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize for overwriting your edit 71.40.58.30's talk page. I take full responsibility for my actions and re-instated the final warning on him/her.

For Christ's Sake

Why do you care so much? What are we really trying to accomplish here? With editors like you it's no wonder so many good editors have left.UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Furnace Recreation Area

Good Day Sir. Thank you for your service. I appreciate Wikipedia and understand how important it is for data to be current and truthful. I wanted to pass along that the page now talks about the group camp site, but no longer states any information regarding the family camp site. I was just trying to remove information that stated "as of October 2010..." But it appear the whole para has been removed e.g. recreation area camping sites, only the group site info is left. I just wanted to bring to your attention.

Thanks and regards.

MSP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.202.204 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen Rice

With all due respect, what I entered on Glen Rice's page was not "gossip," these are allegations that he had an affair in 1987 with a (then) reporter by an author, a possible violation of NCAA rules. As for the source, The National Enquirer is cited throughout Wikipedia. As allegations, these are in and of themselves, factual and important, hence my specific phrasing in the entry.(Sintauro (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

View the page history for consensus, and then if you feel so strongly about it, take it to the talk page. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, a possible violation of NCAA rules? Is this something you came up with yourself? --CutOffTies (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's your responsibility to strike what you think is out of bounds. I honestly accept your judgment on deleting the entry, but I had to make it clear to you that I wasn't attempting to post "gossip." And frankly no, the possible NCAA rules violation isn't something I "came up" with myself. It's been a subject of discussion in the past with other players. As you probably know, there are a whole host of activities and relationships that players have to refrain from with reporters and with representatives of professional sports organizations, sex with a reporter covering your own games might be one of them for college players.(Sintauro (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

I would be very surprised if having a sexual relationship with a journalist is a NCAA rules violation. Since the ref you provided was from The Enquirer, I still don't think it was appropriate. However, you may consider adding content based on this article [1] --CutOffTies (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) --CutOffTies (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd seen That LA Times story, but went with the National Enquirer's posting since they had the initial coverage and claimed it as an exclusive etc. In any case, as I mentioned earlier I don't intend to challenge your edit, I accept the decision.(Sintauro (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

The LA Times reference is much better for a couple reasons. First of all, The National Enquirer is a tabloid with a poor reputation. It should be easy enough to find stuff about that. Secondly, the LA Times specifically says that Rice confirms the sex. I don't believe the Enquirer says that. Anyway thanks for the discussion and respect. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Glen Rice confirms the sexual affair is actually in both pieces, but they both are referencing material (claims) within the book itself. Cheers.(Sintauro (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Message from John

yes this is john i was just trying to update my info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgovereasy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

thats cool i do not really know how to work this thing. i just started to get online so i was trying to figure it out thats all. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgovereasy (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New user

Yes I have been contributing a lot lately. I am strongly considering getting an account, but have just been lazy, and go form having weeks of freetime and weeks where I am lucky to catch my breath long enough to smoke!!!

But yes I will do the 4 ~ thing from now on.

Forgive me if I seem loopy, it's been a long day, back to work after almost a month of doing nothing. But thank you for actually responding to me as a person, the "wiki-bot" has responded before and I basically ignored it!

) 24.98.250.155 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CutOffTies, Thank you for you kind welcome (Cold Mountain , novel). I am usually signed on as Welby99, apparently not when I made the edit. Thank you for your suggestions and guidance. If you have time, check my previous edits and I welcome any suggestions. Thank you, Welby99 21:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Welby99 Sept. 23, 2011

Apology

I sincerely apologize for the trouble I have caused. I will not edit anymore.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Until I did the research tonight, I didn't realize that the Laura Veirs/Lisa Loeb comparison thing was going on for so long...they sound nothing alike --CutOffTies (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't think so just a bit? They do look alike. Again, my apologies. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia. I tried to be constructive but too often was not. The IP uses were generally accidental and are open IPs used by various people. It does not appear I can be a constructive editor and as such I will no longer edit.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Clara Barton

This is my first talk to another user. Don't know if you are a Wiki employee or not but you seem knowledgeable and helpful.

On the note about the picture I found the information at the Clara Barton Museum and feel it is valid but don't have an online reference.

PS Not sure if I click on Save Page below if you will get this as it my first try at communications with another on Wiki. Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highfly3442 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Just noticed that my signature was not there. I don't know how to get those 4 tildes? signs to make a signature. Will look that up. Actually I just noticed them below and will cut and paste and see if that works. Highfly3442 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Please don't edit my user page. That's for my personal customization and mines only.

Not if you make it seem like another user/bot is leaving messages that they didn't --CutOffTies (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

four tildes

I left you a message on your talk page under "New User". I signed using the four tildes, but it didn't leave mine in blue. Could you explain what I am doing wrong? Thnak you so much. Welby99, Sept. 23, 2011 Welby99 00:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welby99 (talk • contribs)

The four tildes is fine, but your userpage link will be red until you create it. If you click on the red link, then you will have an opportunity to create it. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln High School (Brooklyn, New York) Edits

Much thanks for the help with the notable alumni section for Abraham Lincoln High School (Brooklyn, New York) --SpyMagician (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Latest in the Dane Rauschenberg saga

Just as I was familiarizing myself with the block process for disruptive usernames, I saw that you had already nominated the latest vandal. Thanks for grabbing this one and taking care of it so quickly. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Paula Poundstone

What Violet Fae perceives as a BLP violation was taken to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Paula Poundstone. You must know about this by now. Are you going to comment there? Clear up the accusation made by Violet Fae on the Paula Poundstone talk page that we are one in the same? 50.56.119.215 (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about partially tarnishing your good name

As you know, I tried to tell them you weren't me. One person was even going to block you, but I told them how wrong they'd be.[2] Violet Fae is a rude know-it-all, and I commented in the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance you started about her.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.160.103 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though there's nothing for you to apologize for. On the BLPNB thread, Will Beback's comments make the most sense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with your argument- I don't know the policy on proxies so I'm not going to comment on the fact that the IPs were blocked - but suppressing your comments here [4] is troubling.

Obviously from my perspective, the fact that experienced editors and admins jumped to conclusions is very bothersome - I really think that a few minute look at my editing history with some common sense shows that it is was extremely unlikely that I would sockpuppet on the matter. Besides the two edits reverting the "BLP violation", I have no real history on the Poundstone topic, and in four+ years and 40,000+ edits, I have avoided any significant conflict. If I was the type of editor to start an argument with multiple IPs, one would think I would've been blocked a long time ago. In addition, your writing style is pretty different than mine. My comments on the Poundstone talk page [5] illustrate this.

Thank you for the note and being proactive in denying the sockpuppet allegations. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

you should create a page for Speedy Deletion Bothers

Oh and thanks for pawning my BAND listing. Tell me again, why a band with reviews, performance videos, 3 released cds and counting is not worthy of a wikipedia page? Oh, i've got to get a friend to create the page? jmacofearth (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)jmacofearth

Please read the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles to give yourself a better understanding on why Buzzie has been deleted twice now. You may want to refer to the article for deletion nomination to further your understanding even more.

As for your question, no, you don't have to have a friend to create a page. The reason it was deleted is not because of the blatant conflict of interest (though that is certainly discouraged). --CutOffTies (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THIS: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: jmacofearth (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)jmacofearth

oh delete it for me, please, thank you

I'm too busy. And too civil to take your snark lying down. Please delete my shit as you see fit. THANKS for your oversight. jmacofearth (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)jmacofearth

Deletion of non-encylopedic trivia

CutOffTies, I endorse this edit: [6]. Glad to find someone else who "gets it." This kind of trivia, whether sourced with a footnote or not, is not encyclopedic, and I routinely delete it wherever I find in sports articles. The other common examples of trivia that I routinely delete are career descriptions of non-notable family members, relationships with non-notable boyfriends and girlfriends, lists and links of the five or six athletes ahead of a subject on a career records list, and mentions of high school and college teammates. I also routinely delete notable family members from the lead section of athlete bios where the family relationships have nothing to do with the subject's notability, but I do include such family members in the "early years" or "personal" sections. Let me know if you feel the same way about these issues . . . if so, I would love to coordinate the clean-up of various athlete bios I am trying to improve. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep fighting the good fight! Related, I can't believe how many musicians articles consist of lists detailing each time a TV show played one of their songs. Stupid trivia! CutOffTies (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes on web page

These changes were made or removed because 1. it was an opinion and not fact, 2. the content was not recent and 3. the new content took out subjectivity and clarified the facts. The changes should be restored to reflect the facts.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llorracj3 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, would you like me to go over each change you made and explain why I reverted them? --CutOffTies (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Gillian Welch/Dave Rawlings article

Hello! Thank you for your message. I hope I'm replying in the right place. You message said exactly what I was thinking at the time. I was looking for a comment section to suggest a change to an article, but couldn't find anything. That's why I put my edit into directly into the copy. I'd actually much prefer to not directly edit, because I don't know any html and finding my way around wikipedia articles is very difficult for me. I have to educate myself more about the architecture of Wikipedia, I think. Thank you for your help!

Best, Daniel DanielStolte (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Article

Hi,

I'm writing regarding an article you deleted for The Traumatics.

You cited the page as a fictional band from the novel Freedom.

True, it is a band referenced in the fictional novel, but the band itself is real.

Other real bands also referenced (and quoted in regards to The Traumatics) in the same novel include Bright Eyes, Wilco & REM.

I was personally at a show of theirs, and felt compelled to create a Wikipedia page for them once international attention came about in Vanity Fair Italy.

Can we please revive the page?

3and3 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You need better sources to prove that the Vanity Fair article isn't some sort of Joke. Richard Katz is a fictional character, and the Wikipedia article you created said he is the lead singer. Quite dubious. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have found information on the Wikipedia page of Jennifer Carroll as biased and inaccurate

I have found information on the Wikipedia page of Jennifer Carroll as biased and inaccurate and I have made a number of attempts to correct the content; however, it keeps reverting back to the old information. I am going through the process of posting on the Talk Page as another step to get this matter resolved. I am informing Wikipedia that I find the following three points listed below on the page of Jennifer Carroll objectionable and the reasons are also listed. I would appreciate your assistance in getting this matter resolved. Thank you

Point 1. Carroll is no longer the Lieutenant Governor she received a new position, yet you continue to remove her new position as the first introductory line. Her current position should take precedence over her former job. “On April 24, 2013, Carroll joined Global Digital Solutions, as senior advisor; she will become president and chief operating officer after the completion of its planned merger with Airtronic USA, a woman-owned small arms manufacturer. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=GDSI”

Point 2. This is a subjective statement and one that is the writer’s opinion. Cite the facts of whom and when Carroll used poor judgment, “ increasingly viewed as an embarrassment to the man who chose her for the job” rather than someone subjectively saying so, where is Governor Scotts’ statement of this or his Administration statement of this. Where is the recording or written word of Scott or anyone else in the Administration stating that Carroll was an embarrassment? As a matter of fact, Scott repeatedly praised Carroll and her work? If the NY Times reporters comments cannot be proven, you cannot put information that is defaming if it is not supported with evidence. “The New York Times reported that Carroll's tenure as lieutenant governor was "marred by scandal and poor judgment" and she was "increasingly viewed as an embarrassment to the man who chose her for the job.”

Point 3. Site the allegations, who are they from? Cite the source that shows with evidence that Carroll was under criminal investigation. The FBI or Florida Department of Law Enforcement did not produce any documents or made any statements that Carroll was under investigation or was involved with the allegations associated with the parties of Allied Veterans. It later came out and it was never disputed by Governor Scott that Carroll resigned because he asked for her resignation. “Carroll resigned her post as lieutenant governor on March 12, 2013, following allegations that she was involved in an effort to steer money into Internet cafes that are fronts for gambling, the subject of federal and state criminal investigations” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llorracj3 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Degree and commission accuracy correction requested

As another point of dispute and inaccuracy on the Jennifer Carroll Wikipedia Page. Point 1. “She received a Master of Business Administration degree from unaccredited and now defunct Kensington University in 1995.”

Kensington University received, under old California standards, permission in the State of California to administer degrees. Below is information I received from California Bureau of Post Secondary Education. Additionally, keep in mind that Carroll attended Kensington in the 1980's during the years of no internet as we currently know it. Carroll started her degree program in 1987 and finished it in 1991.

RE: Kensington University Dear Ms. Carroll: The following correspondence is in reference to your inquiry to the Bureau for Private Postsec6ndary Education (BPPE) regarding the approval and closure of Kensington University, which was located in Glendale, California. The BPPE is not an accrediting agency. The BPPE is a California State regulatory agency and our legislative statute grants us the authority to approve private postsecondary educational institutions in California with an approval to operate. Kensington University which was located at 124 S Isabel Street, Glendale, CA 92014, received full approval to offer degree (of Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral levels) from the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPE's predecessor agency) on June 1", 1976 until its closure on June 8, 1996. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me via email at Valerie.McZeek@dca.ca.gov or by telephone at (916) 431-6912. Sincerely, Valerie McZeek Office Technician

Point 2. “Carroll resigned her position on the National Commission of Presidential Scholars after a CBS investigation raised questions about her degree.”

The above is not a true statement and there are no factual bases to back up this information. This comment was made by a reporter Jaime Holguin CBS News who stated in his article,” Florida Representative Jennifer Carroll just stepped down from the National Commission on Presidential Scholars.” He did not say Carroll stepped down because of the degree issue. This was an inference by you and readers. There is no evidence of Carroll stepping down because of the degree issue. Carroll’s three year term ended on the Presidential Scholars Commission and was asked to continue an appointment on a newly formed Veterans Benefit and Disability Commission and served out her three year term. She was the only female on the 13 member Veterans Benefit and Disability Commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llorracj3 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed the earlier text on Donald Rusk Currey, as it was only tangentially related to him, and was mainly a description of one version of events associated with the cutting down of an old tree. Don didn't deny being present when the tree was cut, but the story told in the text I replaced was quite one-sided. Don Currey had many other attributes, and the text I provided attempts to give a more broadly based account of his life.

Grendel Selkie (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know Don Currey? I did, and he was a good friend of mine. I am quite offended by the narrative that attempts to summarize his life by cutting of a tree. The account I wrote does not deny that he had a role in the cutting of an old tree in Nevada, but writing a account in which that is the main point of his life is quite erroneous. Grendel Selkie (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I found the subject's article because I was updating uncategorized articles. If you like to make changes to an article, I suggest you read through the link I gave you and make sure your content is well sourced. If you feel the article should have the attention of other, more experienced editors, perhaps post on the talk page here Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia --CutOffTies (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry Regarding Facebook Links

You removed facebook links from Noor Pur Baghan.

I will review the guidelines for now before putting them back but I am not sure why this type of bigotry would exist.

I am not sure why Facebook Links cannot be added while Wikipedia links are referenced and added all the time on Facebook.

Why such a bigotry? Those links were directly related to the topic and not for the advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad Altaf (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your review! Vysatia10 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Blue Glue

Hello, CutOffTies. You have new messages at Combie-tractor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply now)

Hi, thanks for your interest in the position. GMU's application is now open. Please apply if you think it's a good fit! Application. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

George Mason Wikipedia Visiting Scholar (please apply this week)

Hi! You expressed interest in the GMU WVS position. If you haven't already, please fill out the Application by January 27th. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

GMU

Just a note, this is history very broadly construed. It's a new media center at GMU, so even the history of computing and technology would fit, as in 'recent history'. I'd encourage you to apply and just explain what your area of focus is. Then you can let GMU make that call. I'll tell you that there are not a lot of applicants yet, so if you're just clear and honest in your application you'd still have a shot. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm going to have to really stretch "history" when linking to articles I've worked on but I'll put something together. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I applied. Thank you again. Let me know if for any reason you want me to send my application to you as well. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll keep you posted. No need to send me an application personally, I'm coordinating with GMU on the backend. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gunjan Walia page

You removed my content placed under Gunjan Walia and restored it to redirect to Saat Phere. Can I know the reason?

This is totally wrong. The page is for a known actress, while you are redirecting it to a TV show. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmemsme (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Loveless page help

Heya, could you help me fix a few things on this new page I created for the new Lydia Loveless record - Somewhere Else (Lydia Loveless album)

• "File: BS219 Digital Super Hi Res.jpeg |frameless|alt=|" text above cover art image
• Is the cover image going to be okay? I found it very confusing. It's here: File:BS219 Digital Super Hi Res.jpeg
• Merge History - is this a big deal? I did a draft in articles for creation but didn't want to wait so just created the new page....

Thanks (and I owe you a beer, for real!)... BrillLyle (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have been offline for a bit. It looks like you have things sorted now but let me know if you have any other questions. The article looks great! --CutOffTies (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, I figured out all the dumb mistakes I made.... xo E BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)