User talk:Pumpmeup/Archive 3
Status: Around 
 |
 |
||
| User Page | Talk |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thank you
Thank you for the star. It is always tonic to find out that somebody, somewhere appreciates what you are doing. Thanks again. Afil (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please ve very carefull when nominating pages for speedy deletion. You nominated the article on Battle of Olompali for speedy deletion less than a minute after creation. Many editors will start an article with an info box, save it to make sure it looks ok then add content (which appears to be exactly what has happened in this case). here at 19:14 the article was created. Less than a minute later at 19:14 you tagged it for speedy deletion. 2 minutes later, the edior addes content. THis is biting, please be much more careful as this can easily scare of valid contributors. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1. That particular user has been contributing for 5 months, I would hardly call them a newcomer. 2. So, when tagging pages which are obviously not appropriate, would you like me to hold off for 10 minutes? How on earth would all of us keep track of pages that might be candidates for speedy deletion? If I'm out tagging new pages for deletion, I'm bound to identify a page which qualifies for speedy deletion but may have potential for improvement. The point is, when I tagged it, it did meet the criteria CSD A3 (it was blank/had no content other than internal links. 3. I'm quite aware of what biting is, and seeing as you classify a 5-month editor as eligible for please don't bite the newcomers, you're actually biting me by not assuming good faith. Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you will notice, I am kindly bringing this to your attention. All I kidnyl ask is that you carefulyl choose which articles you choose to mark for deletion. This article had a perfetly valid info box. Yes, you can be expected to wait for pages liked that to see if they materialize into a real article. I have written many articles this way and have had them tagged before I finish with them. Give the editor the reason of the doubt. I understand the fast paced environment of new page patrol, i myself spent many months doing it. However, please keep in mind your true purpose here on this project. It is wasy to get so caught up in it that you lose sight. Again, all i kindlky ask is that you carefulyl choose which articles to mark for deletion. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm sorry about picking holes in you, but I just took offense to it. No offense is directed at you :-) Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you will notice, I am kindly bringing this to your attention. All I kidnyl ask is that you carefulyl choose which articles you choose to mark for deletion. This article had a perfetly valid info box. Yes, you can be expected to wait for pages liked that to see if they materialize into a real article. I have written many articles this way and have had them tagged before I finish with them. Give the editor the reason of the doubt. I understand the fast paced environment of new page patrol, i myself spent many months doing it. However, please keep in mind your true purpose here on this project. It is wasy to get so caught up in it that you lose sight. Again, all i kindlky ask is that you carefulyl choose which articles to mark for deletion. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Deletions
Please go more careful when tagging pages for speedy deletions. You tagged Eva Bacharach for deletion as a copyvio stating there was no assertion of permission. The references section clearly states that the article incorporates information from the jewish encylopedia, an publication now in the public domain. Thank you in advance for taking more time before tagging articles for speedy deletion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The website references and actually provides an image of the page in the jewsih enclyopedia the content came from. THey cannot claim copyright to the content because it is un the public domain. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously I made a perfectly understandable mistake here. You couldn't possibly expect me to know this without in-depth investigation, something most people don't do when keeping up with the fast pace of newpages patrolling. Please don't be so quick to jump on perceived errors negatively so quickly. Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it is a reasonable mistake. I brought it to your attention so that you will be aware in the future, not to be an ass. Similarly, you are expected to do research of like articles before tagging them for deletion. Deletion is not something to be taken lightly and should only occur when you are extremyl confident that the article is deserving of deletion. This very often requires reserach into the merits of the article. On top of that, after I removed the speedy tag, you reverted me. Please have a little faith as well in your fellow editors. Not everybody is out to get you. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well thanks for directing my attention to it, but the whole idea of a wiki is that if someone screws up, it's always undo-able. So if someone is perceived to have screwed up, please try not to beat 'em up. Cheers, Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it is a reasonable mistake. I brought it to your attention so that you will be aware in the future, not to be an ass. Similarly, you are expected to do research of like articles before tagging them for deletion. Deletion is not something to be taken lightly and should only occur when you are extremyl confident that the article is deserving of deletion. This very often requires reserach into the merits of the article. On top of that, after I removed the speedy tag, you reverted me. Please have a little faith as well in your fellow editors. Not everybody is out to get you. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously I made a perfectly understandable mistake here. You couldn't possibly expect me to know this without in-depth investigation, something most people don't do when keeping up with the fast pace of newpages patrolling. Please don't be so quick to jump on perceived errors negatively so quickly. Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Here is a barnstar for your prolific new page patrolling. I know I hardped on a few errors you made but that does not mean you are not a valuable editor for all of the correct ones you did make.
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| I, Chrislk02, award you this defender of the wiki barnstar. You defend this wiki from an onslaught of NN pages that should be promptly delete! Keep up the good work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Thanks for my first barn star :) I'm glad we've agreed and come to a peaceful conclusion not resulting in the admin involved in the argument irrationally blocking the non-admin, as has happened to me before. Cheers, and happy editing :-D Pumpmeup(is awake!) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
speedy delition of copyrighted article
Hi there Pumpmeup. Here is something to 'chew on'. One can NOT copyright what is BASIC and irrefutable data on someone's wartime service. I could have obtained the data from any number of sources just because I don't need to retype something already typed. The data is accompanied by almost no other service information, never mind the rest of the biography like dates of birth and death, place of birth, a bit more information of service, etc. So while you may feel great about the delete, I am NOT going to create another seed article again, and the general will remain highlighted in red as he has been for a while I suspect because no one is going to do research on one of the less prominent and known German generals. Feeling pumped? You have exercised you right to bureaucracy and wasted my 5 minutes and probably another five for Weiss, the other article I "infringed copyright" on. Be more like a human being and not a bot, and think before you do.--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Mrg3105. Thanks for you comments here. Believe me, I don't feel in any way "pumped" or special by tagging articles. I'm sorry if you feel this way. What I do is try to ensure Wikipedia stays legal and doesn't violate copyright holder's rights off when tagging pages as such. However in this case I may be in error, though another administrator also thought that the article was an unreasonable copyright violation. Nonetheless I invite you to re-create the aforementioned articles, utilizing the service statistics, etc provided the majority of the text is your creation. Things like what they may have accomplished in service, etc will make it less likely someone similar to myself will feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've offended you or caused you hassle. Cheers, Pumpmeup 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC) {{Welcome!}}
- How about this. I'm just going to do what I'm good at, which is research and writing. I am not going to learn anything about Wikipedia's nightmarish bureaucracy since there are others like yourself who cope so well with it. I will follow my own rules, the first of which is called Common Sense. It seems to me far too many people are running around administrating, rather then actually working on OLD articles and improving their quality. I am registered. IF you feel so desperate to delete anything, the least you can do as a simple courtesy is to ask me first since I don't think my addition was malicious or a form of vandalism. Copyright is also not so clear. Although the page this came from has a copyright symbol, only the actual photograph on the page is subject to it, so I didn't use it because only God knows how long it woudl take to establish copyright of the photo that by the looks of it was taken during the time the officer was a POW, so probably the original copyright belonged to the US, British or French DoD and is now in the public domain anyway. Please consider intentions of the editor. Spend a minute to peruse the contribution. Best wishes --Mrg3105 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I always try to assume good faith, maybe something you need to consider. I appreciate the fact there is often mounds of red tape around many things in Wikipedia, and I sympathize with many of the points you've raised. By all means, ignore all the rules and make Wikipedia a better place, your contributions may not always be recognized positively but are appreciated and valuable. Happy editing :-) Pumpmeup 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Pumpmeup, given that you taught mes something to day by pointing to the ignore all the rules, I will share with you that I have not had a good day, week or a month, and today was particularly exasperating, so I may have over-reacted. To boot, what started like seemingly a fairly simple average sized article edit, has turned out to be a philosophical excursion into the very core of Wikipedia and article structure. Ah, do you what's there? Yes, there is NOTHING. While Wikipedia seeks to add structure to knowledge, its own contribution lacks the very thing it seeks to add to the World! So for a bit of diversion I decided to eliminate a few 'reds' in an article which included a smallish translation and I got jumped on by the two of you. Its interesting about the growth of Wikipedia management features and bureaucracy in direct proportion to growth in contributions with all the tags, markups, warning and boxes, its a wonder anything actually gets to featured article stage, which is the article benchmark for quality:)--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- These things happen. Most of the time people like us that try to deal with the flood of ne'er do wells that want a cheap thrill out of Wikipedia or a pushing an agenda are worn down by the onslaught of such edits. Occasionally when someone such as yourself makes an honest attempt to add valuable information to the project imperfectly, we mindlessly trash their contributions - it's bound to happen and it's always good when editors raise the point instead of taking quiet offense to it and never contributing again. The whole article building process is never helped by the fact we often have too many maintainers of the "structure" and too few actual contributors. I'm glad we've not come to loggerheads and I hope you continue making valuable contributions well into the future. Regards, Pumpmeup 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at your project Maintaining a Presentable Encyclopedia, and its kind of a cross-purpose with what I was proposing elsewhere. One of the common problems in articles is the way they get chopped and changed by editors. I was suggesting that a structured and compartmentalised approach may reduce this by reducing increasing the number of elements the article consists of instead of editors trying to cope with one whole article. The idea comes from swallowing small bites when eating, which is good etiquette and tends to kill fewer people from choking :)I wonder who could be influential enough to consider this as a proposal, or where it can be voiced in the vast maze that is Wikipedia. --Mrg3105 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The whole idea of a Wikipedian community is that we're all equals. Stuff like that is unlikely to become policy, but anyone can propose it to become a policy. It will likely just remain an essay. Pumpmeup 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at your project Maintaining a Presentable Encyclopedia, and its kind of a cross-purpose with what I was proposing elsewhere. One of the common problems in articles is the way they get chopped and changed by editors. I was suggesting that a structured and compartmentalised approach may reduce this by reducing increasing the number of elements the article consists of instead of editors trying to cope with one whole article. The idea comes from swallowing small bites when eating, which is good etiquette and tends to kill fewer people from choking :)I wonder who could be influential enough to consider this as a proposal, or where it can be voiced in the vast maze that is Wikipedia. --Mrg3105 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- These things happen. Most of the time people like us that try to deal with the flood of ne'er do wells that want a cheap thrill out of Wikipedia or a pushing an agenda are worn down by the onslaught of such edits. Occasionally when someone such as yourself makes an honest attempt to add valuable information to the project imperfectly, we mindlessly trash their contributions - it's bound to happen and it's always good when editors raise the point instead of taking quiet offense to it and never contributing again. The whole article building process is never helped by the fact we often have too many maintainers of the "structure" and too few actual contributors. I'm glad we've not come to loggerheads and I hope you continue making valuable contributions well into the future. Regards, Pumpmeup 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Pumpmeup, given that you taught mes something to day by pointing to the ignore all the rules, I will share with you that I have not had a good day, week or a month, and today was particularly exasperating, so I may have over-reacted. To boot, what started like seemingly a fairly simple average sized article edit, has turned out to be a philosophical excursion into the very core of Wikipedia and article structure. Ah, do you what's there? Yes, there is NOTHING. While Wikipedia seeks to add structure to knowledge, its own contribution lacks the very thing it seeks to add to the World! So for a bit of diversion I decided to eliminate a few 'reds' in an article which included a smallish translation and I got jumped on by the two of you. Its interesting about the growth of Wikipedia management features and bureaucracy in direct proportion to growth in contributions with all the tags, markups, warning and boxes, its a wonder anything actually gets to featured article stage, which is the article benchmark for quality:)--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I always try to assume good faith, maybe something you need to consider. I appreciate the fact there is often mounds of red tape around many things in Wikipedia, and I sympathize with many of the points you've raised. By all means, ignore all the rules and make Wikipedia a better place, your contributions may not always be recognized positively but are appreciated and valuable. Happy editing :-) Pumpmeup 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about this. I'm just going to do what I'm good at, which is research and writing. I am not going to learn anything about Wikipedia's nightmarish bureaucracy since there are others like yourself who cope so well with it. I will follow my own rules, the first of which is called Common Sense. It seems to me far too many people are running around administrating, rather then actually working on OLD articles and improving their quality. I am registered. IF you feel so desperate to delete anything, the least you can do as a simple courtesy is to ask me first since I don't think my addition was malicious or a form of vandalism. Copyright is also not so clear. Although the page this came from has a copyright symbol, only the actual photograph on the page is subject to it, so I didn't use it because only God knows how long it woudl take to establish copyright of the photo that by the looks of it was taken during the time the officer was a POW, so probably the original copyright belonged to the US, British or French DoD and is now in the public domain anyway. Please consider intentions of the editor. Spend a minute to peruse the contribution. Best wishes --Mrg3105 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Denis Taaffe
Hi, thanks for your interest in Denis Taaffe. Could you elaborate on why you think it doesn't meet meets bio / notability criteria? Dsp13 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I can't find a source that indicates he is notable or exceptional. There are thousands of political writers, certainly not all worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Could you tell me what makes the subject notable or exceptional? Cheers, Pumpmeup 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Julius III
I went back to check the history of this page and confirmed that I had added 2 references into the main body of the text (to provide proper citation). I did not remove or alter dates/ information. I commend your keen concern to prevent vandalism - which I agree is against the spirit of wikipedia. But can I suggest that you intervene more selectively next time, and avoid coming down in a heavy-handed way (especially when you have not sought to check the facts). A touch of humility would not go amiss! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies! I didn't realize the information was in fact correct. Normally I just skim over things and if it turns up things like altering numbers, using "flagged" words, etc I suspect vandalism. It would appear I didn't look over it as well as I should, and I'll keep this in mind in future. Happy editing, Pumpmeup 10:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Pumpmeup ... your WP:CSD#A7 of The Corks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was declined a few days ago, but I'm going at it again with my Warn-band protocol, which I invite you to try (i.e., warnings and WP:PROD as an alternative to speedy deletion as a "first swing") ... I may ping you in a few days to invite a {{Prod-2}} or to announce an AfD nomination ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
Thanks for your help.
I'm new to this wikipedia thing and it's awesome to have people helping me out. The tutorials can be a little overwhelming sometimes. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfalexander (talk • contribs) 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. Those pages i'll be sure to look over. -Brian Alexander (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, it's great to know that someone appreciates it :-D. I hope you like the place and decide to stick around. Here's a few handy links in case you need them. {{Welcome!}} Pumpmeup 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. Those pages i'll be sure to look over. -Brian Alexander (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out my edit
I was wondering if I was doing a good job..I formatted the dorm names and year built on the NGU page that you added the logo to..check it out if you get a chance.
-Brian Alexander (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've done a great job adding content to the North Greenville University article. Just ensure that you respect copyright (ensure all text contributions are your own), and you're doing a fine job of improving Wikipedia. Happy editing Pumpmeup 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm just trying to get the hang of things here. I need to work on making sure all the texts are my own though. -Brian Alexander (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An Administrator is I!
.svg)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
NPWatcher
I see you do a lot of newpage patrolling. I was wondering if you were aware of the wonders that is User:Martinp23/NPWatcher. Just as a headsup. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear Pumpmeup, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Angel (2007 film) - Speedy Deletion
Hello,
I have removed all of the excerpts from the contested site on Angel (2007 film) - how long will it take before you remove the 'speedy deletion' message from the page?
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaircairell (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your NPWatcher application
Dear Pumpmeup,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! Unfortunately, your application has been declined because lack of understanding of the CSD policy. Feel free to reapply in future.
Snowolf How can I help? 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. By the number of pages that you have nominated for speedy deletion which has been declined, and in your case it's too high. We will surely welcome your application in the future. Snowolf How can I help? 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the help on the image. The seems to be requested for manual of style on the automatic peer reviewer, so will not do that on image descriptions aaymore. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have now fixed the formatting of this page properly. Editor was using wikilinks in image captions, but only closing one set of ']]'. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Pumpmeup! This is just a friendly head's up that there is a small consensus that the MfD might be jumping the gun a bit. You may, or may not, want to consider withdrawing the nomination, or modifying it a bit. Purely your call, keep on keepin' on!--12 Noon 2¢ 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Catholic Encyclopedia articles
Hi - you nominated James Andrew Corcoran for deletion. Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright as it was written in 1913 and is in the public domain. You should find a tag at the bottom saying that it is in the public domain. You may also find that this will be the case with Encyclopedia Britannica and Jewish Encyclopedia content. JASpencer (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Help!
Some time ago you sent me a barnstar for my contribution on rivers. Unfortunately your opinion is not shared by everyone, and it has been suggested that the articles be deleted. The discussion is taking place regarding the Bella River, but is not limited to this river and if a consensus is reached for the deletion this would be applicable to all the other rivers. It would help if you would participate in the discussions. Otherwise, I might keep the barnstar but there would be no more articles on the rivers.Afil (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
MfD Again (You voted before)
- The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Blanking
Thanks for reverting X3210's vandalism of my talk page. Apparently he thinks that because I unblanked his talk page (he blanked everything, including warnings, without archiving), that gives him the right to blank mine. Superm401 - Talk 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sir Norman Bettson Biography.
I have just attempting to publish the official biography of Sir Norman Bettison, adapted from the West Yorkshire Police website - http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/section-item.asp?sid=2&iid=3042 However, this has again been instantly changed back to an unauthorised version which appears to controvene Wikipedia's own policies on Living Person Biographies. I am concerned that the anauthorised versions contains opinionated negatives and has been posted mischievously and inappropriately, and seeks to harm Sir Norman Bettison's reputation. I understand these go against your own guidelines, ref biographies of living persons? Not only that, but recent postings by the mischievous user also posted the following insult: "..and a greedy vain moron who keeps changing this page to a bland biog.." which surely cannot be acceptable to your publishing policy. I have been attempting to revert this to a factual bi-og, adapted from the official version which is published and available to view on the West Yorkshire Police website. However, I have now been prevented from doing so due to "vandalism". Surely, it is our official version which should remain while you investigate this issue, and not the mischievous version which focuses almost entirely on very negative opinions. Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.91.186 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try to remember that wikipedia is a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia. We aim to provide free knowledge. Our policies are strictly against publishing "official" text from other sources (which are in fact subject to copyright, and are unable to be used). Please take a look at the introduction to editing. Pumpmeup 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
LAMB Hospital, Bangladesh
Hi there, if you'd like to move the LAMB Hospital, Bangladesh article to a new title I can assist. Just let me know the name you would like it moved to (on my talk page) and I can do it for you. Cheers, Pumpmeup 06:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I would like the title to be 'LAMB Integrated Rural Health & Development Project' It is more complicated, but also the official name. Christian Vestergaard (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've placed the above tag on the article as it appears to be a substantial copyright violation of http://lambproject.org/View.php?sectionid=0&pageid=2 , and is not written from a neutral point of view. If you can fix the article, namely removing copyrighted text, please let me know and I will remove the tag. Cheers, Pumpmeup 09:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no doubt I am not unbiased as a person, I live and work at LAMB and I have taken the text from our website (so am violating my own copyright) and added bits to it as a way of editing the page. I am not sure, which parts of the text that are biased. I have looked through the text and don't find statements about the quality of work we do - except that we did receive an award - which I will verify and then edit in the text. The idea for including it I have taken from other articles on Wikipedia.
- I have no objection to the subject matter, and am sympathetic with your plight. All that needs to be done is the text taken from the above website removed, and try to write only the facts from a neutral point of view. Cheers, Pumpmeup 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this is not the kind of article that is usually included in the Wikipedia I will have no hard feelings about you deleting it. From my (biased) perspective LAMB is important for not only our district in Bangladesh, but the entire division. People researching development work could learn from us - as we do from many others; These include Plan and ICDDR,B, both found on Wikipedia and both working with us.
- In actual fact, I will remove the tag as you have asserted copyright permission (technically we should do an investigation and get tangled in red tape but I'll let it slide ;-). Just try to write as unbiased as possible. All the best, Pumpmeup 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll appreciate further comments Christian Vestergaard (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will continue working on the content and do my best to remove any biased information. Please feel free to continue contributing comments. Christian Vestergaard (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tell me if the link I put in to EngenderHealth provides the kind of verification you are asking for to 'unbias' the article?
- You find LAMB mentioned under the section; Preventing Obstetric Fistula. Christian Vestergaard (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tell me if the link I put in to EngenderHealth provides the kind of verification you are asking for to 'unbias' the article?
Revert
You just reverted my changes. No material was removed, but it was broken into its own article: List of Fuller Theological Seminary people. WWORBERTS (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be useful to include a more descriptive edit summary so others no what you are doing. This was reverted as it was a spite of largely unexplained edits removing content that had previously been reverted by ClueBot. Pumpmeup 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
|
My RfA | |
| Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We are Anonymous.
- Preserved as "one for the archives", a demonstration of complete and utter ridiculousness. Pumpmeup 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind--for the laughs--we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.
You cannot hide; we are everywhere.
We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day--and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.
Yet for all that we are not as monstrous as you are; still our methods are a parallel to your own. Doubtless you will use the Anon's actions as an example of the persecution you have so long warned your followers would come; this is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged. We are your SPs.
Gradually as we merge our pulse with that of your "Church", the suppression of your followers will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Believers will wake, and see that salvation has no price. They will know that the stress, the frustration that they feel is not something that may be blamed upon Anonymous. No--they will see that it stems from a source far closer to each. Yes, we are SPs. But the sum of suppression we could ever muster is eclipsed by that of the RTC.
Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
WE DO NOT FORGET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willis2251 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hilarity
You're funny, 122.148.137.60. You're comments are damn good for a laugh! But please refrain from vandalizing pages (making purposely disruptive or controversial edits), or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Pumpmeup 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well by wikipedia's own Definition Scientology should be classified as a cult. which till 2007 was Scientology was classified as one by the govement of australia
and i meant no harm in telling the world the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willis2251 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sweet as, no need to get worked up over opinions. I have no say or opinion in the issue, I just reverted controversial edits that weren't previously discussed. If you want to make edits that other editors are likely to challenge (and believe me they will!), please discuss it on the article's talk page first. And the nonsense you posted to my talk page earlier certainly won't help you gain credibility. All the best and happy editing, Pumpmeup 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
RFA thanks 
:.
|
Thanks
 |
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
WP:AFC Backlog Drive
|
WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help! |
| WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! |
You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!
AFC Backlog is GONE
|
The Articles for Creation Barnstar | |
| For your help in finally putting an end to the monstrous backlog at Articles for creation, I, Hersfold (t/a/c), hereby award you the Articles for Creation Barnstar! Well done, and thank you for your dedication to the project! Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |