Reginmund

Welcome...

Hello, Reginmund, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Paxse 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxse 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of Encyclopædia Britannica from American to British English

Hi Reginmund,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I was a little surprised by your alteration of all my text at Encyclopædia Britannica from American spelling to British spelling. It's generally customary to defer to the choice of the primary author (ummm, that would be me), and also to discuss such changes before making them. I'd advise you to do that in the future to avoid any hard feelings and edit-wars with other Wikipedians. However, I've no objections here and I see the sense of using British spelling on something whose name implies British orthography; thank you for taking the time to make those changes! :)

There are a few places, however, where your changes will have to be reverted, namely, in the quotations where we should follow the original spelling; I hope that you also see the sense of that.

I'm looking forward to your future edits; good luck with your first Featured Article! :) Willow 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

White Heat

A stool pigeon is generally understood to be a crook. I have never seen it used to describe an undercover lawman. Clarityfiend 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The other version is incorrect. Vic does not work for the local police; he is a federal agent. There is nothing in the current version that says whether he is a con or a lawman. It's not worth an edit war, but IMO, what's there now is less accurate and informative. Clarityfiend 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Texas Theater

It is not standard practice to remove "dead links". Those red links encourage people to create articles, as I have done for the film Cry of Battle. Now that there is an article on the film, please restore the link.

Why do you keep removing Category:John F. Kennedy assassination? This is hardly a "dead link", so please restore it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Middle school

What's regionalsim? I don't understand your reason for going against junior high school. Can you please clarify your point? (MrsMacMan 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Redirect Changes

Hey, could you please discuss further before making any more changes to the redirects, thanks. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussing before denying both my argument and then the neutral third option! ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia may be the title but as the page as been merged it is only logical for the singular form to come first then the plural form, then the off-shoot of the plural form. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivium

• Please discuss this matter in Talk:Trivium#What should this page redirect to? to get it sorted out, instead of an edit war. Anthony Appleyard 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• See the end of Talk:Trivium. Anthony Appleyard 09:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

I didn't delete anything. I added some stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.141.141 (talk • contribs)

That's IP's address at talk Budapest

I reverted you readdition of your comment. It isn't necessary to the conversation. At the most the part about the IP's location should not be there. Yes, it's easy to find that info, but like I said, it doesn't need to be there. Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Katiki Point Lighthouse AfD

I noticed that your Delete in the above discussion is per nom. As you are the nominator, shouldn't that be stated as nom? This avoids the appearance that, from a casual glance, you have !voted twice. Cheers —Travis^talk 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD comments aren't votes, per se, but personally, I count a nomination as a de facto delete !vote. It's a good idea, I suppose, to make things as clear as possible to avoid any conflicts of issues. —Travis^talk 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle

Hey, just to let you know why I reverted your edit — there has been much debate about Newcastle in terms of which city should take prominence. Australia's Newcastle actually has a larger population, but the city in England is probably more widely known. I think the consensus was to list both of these cities first - as well as later on in the list - as these are the most likely to be the ones searched for. I hope I'm not being too negative - just a bit of constructive information. Happy editing!  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11

I would like to ask you to kindly stop reverting the changes I have made to the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. I have simply removed the film from the documentaries category and amended (admittedly crudely) the page to verify that it does not fall under the documentary genre. I have posted in the talk on the page that the film (which I personally enjoyed) should be found a genre, and I am sure there is someone far more scholarly than myself, to find the proper genre for the film. Please refer to the controversial section for the film to find the 'fiction' sections of the film. I would like to point out that it does not matter to what degree there is fiction, as long as it discernible enough to not be fact. Thank you.71.164.0.121 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As to your wishes for a consensus, what do you wish for? There are facts laid down that prove that this film does not follow the definition of a documentary that I have supplied you with in the talk section for this page. Please find another definition of the word, or refrain from undoing my changes. Thank you.

I have supplied you with the means to read the information (the controversial wiki page for the film) which I am referring to. There is no reason that this should not be changed you have provided no information to the contrary, (you have not shown that all -per definition of a documentary- disproven facts in the film, as found on the controversial page, are indeed true. Until you come up with some sort of factual explanation for your actions I will revert the page to it's standard order. In case your political value's feel threatened, nothing I have changed portrays this film as anymore positive or negative than it already is in the article. I am very open to rewording, and actively encourage it, of my changes as I admittedly am not the best writer. 71.164.0.121 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted on the Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion page and it has been there for the entirety of this 'edit war'. If you would like me to provide you with all of the links and information here personally I can do it for you, but to refer to reading information, hopefully to gain the understanding of my point, as a wild goose chase, is just ridiculous. If you don't wish to click the link and read through the information I would be more than happy to post all of the information here and/or on the Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion page. And as for you 'being against this' you have given no supportable reason, leading me to guess it is your political bias, which also brings up question, have you read anything I have said? I have tried my best to make my changes neither negative or positive and have openly asked for help in making them such. I have only made sure the film is not posted under an inappropriate genre. 71.164.0.121 04:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a brief example that takes this movie out of the documentary category. I also posted this on the discussion of said movie.

The following sources provide a well written understand to a couple incorrect facts in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, though this is not to say the entire film is false, just examples to point at this film does not fall under the definition of a documentary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/preston200410200837.asp These two facts were the best written easiest found on short notice and though from a film that is against Fahrenheit 9/11 these two brief examples are still pertinent. This page document’s Army Specialist Peter Damon who feels and has publicly expressed (The Enterprise http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt) that Michael Moore twisted his interview with NBC’s Brian William’s at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Michael Moore was never at the hospital but obtained the interview and used it out of context to make it appear as Damon’s ‘Phantom Pain’, pain in which Damon describes his arms still feel in pain as if they were still there, is actually, as Moore would make you believe, the pain of soldier abandoned by his country. The Enterprise article mentions earlier that his is likely a breech of Damon’s rights. This news report shows the story continuing to unfold. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html For those too lazy to read it, this outlines how Peter Damon is suing Moore for $85 million, “claiming he recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Those who have watched the movie should remember the following scene: “In "Fahrenheit 9/11," the bandaged National Guardsman is shown laying on a gurney complaining that he feels like he's "being crushed in a vise. But they [the drugs] do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it." His image appears seconds after Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind.” For reference: Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort,"

The passage continues by documenting how Oregon State Trooper Andy Kenyon also had his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived. “Moore sent a crew to interview him under the guise of making a documentary about cutbacks in some state police programs.” “[Andy Kenyon’s words were] twisted to insinuate that in cutting Oregon's state police budget (something no president has the authority to do, since state-police budgets are a state matter), President Bush had left the Oregon coastline without police protection. But it was never the Oregon state-police force's job to patrol the coast in the first place. That responsibility belongs to the Coast Guard.” Out of all fairness it is important to note that several of the officers have publicly stated they would have given permission to appear in this film if given the opportunity. This does not excuse the fact that Moore insinuates that the two officers patrolling their respective office (a 40 mile stretch of coast, not mentioned in the film) that they are the only ones patrolling the entire Oregon coast. He then continues by blaming this on Homeland Security, using the previous false fact.

The fact that the representation of these two individuals and blatant inaccuracies makes this film not fall under the category of a documentary. This is not to say the rest of the film isn’t mostly or completely factual.71.164.0.121 04:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Quit Threatening Me :)

I don't appreciate your constant threats of contacting an admin and throwing Wikipedia rules in my face. I find it hypocritacal that you threaten me and ask me to stop personal attacks. If you have any facts related to our topic of debate I am more than happy to read through them, I'm sure they will be much easier to read through than my own (I'm sorry for my own poor writing). Again, please stop, thank you. 71.164.0.121 04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheint 9/11

Saw your report at notice board; anon ed is blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation; I'm not inclined to protect the page because I noticed only one violator. I have also reversed the last edit by anon ed as a 3RR violation. If you still think protection is necessary, please request it on the notice board, not to my talk because someone else should do it. Carlossuarez46 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• He's requested ublocking and I'll give him benefit of the doubt: he has an account and could well have continued being naughty under that account rather than posting to my talk page, so I'll WP:AGF for the while. He seems to have promised to be better. Also, you have technically violated WP:3RR as well, although he's reverted not just your edits but several others. Why don't you both hash this out at the talk page, or ask someone (not me, but maybe someone who edits film articles) for mediation. Best of luck. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Henderson Presents

Hello. I saw that you changed the title of this film from Mrs. (with a period) to Mrs (without a period). I am just curious why this is? I have never seen that before. Can you please help me understand why you made this change and, more importantly, why would it be correctly spelled without a period? Please answer on my Talk Page. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Often, but not always in British English, the full stop in front of an abbreviation may be omitted. I figured since this is a British :film, we should go by how it was released there and when I checked[1], it turns out that it was released without the full stop. Thank you for your concern. Happy editing! Reginmund 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess, you learn something new every day. I had never heard of this British convention. I am glad that you enlightened me. Thank you! (JosephASpadaro 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

You need to stop wiki stalking me, it will not end well for you otherwise. --Hayden5650 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

re your question about RFCU

Re RFCU request discussion at my talk, could you please do some of my homework? Once those fellows lost their ability to clog the talk page of Kiev article with the creation of the designated subpage, I stopped following the discussion closely as there is nothing there but repetition of the same arguments accompanied by ignoring the arguments of the other side. I don't really care how many kilobytes they type there but since this disruption continues to deflect the resources of others from productive work, I think it is indeed a good time for a checkuser request. Could you please compile the list of the single-use accounts involved, including the IP's? You may want to look at the history of Kiev, its talk and other related articles such as History of Kiev, Kievan Rus and many others. Whatever article the established Kyivizer account leads is worth of checking the history. It is OK if you are too busy. Than I will put aside some time one of these days. --Irpen 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please vote!

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RM @ Talk:Emo (slang)

Hi.

You have commented on the Requested Move discussion at Talk:Emo (slang). Your comments have been taken into consideration, and your #--~~~~ would be appreciated in an effort to generate wider consensus.--ZayZayEM 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Les Enfants du Siècle

Please stop deleting and changing content which has been researched and is correct, it is getting silly. I have clarified this point for you umpteen times. It just seems childish tit-for-tat now. Dohanlon 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Complaint? Nice try, but I haven't actually broken any rules. Saying that you have a DVD in your hands is original research and irrelevant to the argument. Nor does the argument that it is an import hold up. Region 1 films are all suited for the U.S. and Canada. By say, they technically are imports considering the fact that they are produced in Oriental sweat shops."

If it is not distributed in any given country but is available on websites it is an import. That is a fact. I have provided a link to the Film Four DVD with references to the ASIN codes. Proof beyond doubt. As for sweat shops oriental or otherwise - what proof of that have you? Where the actual disc is produced is irrelevant as it is the content and it's distribution rights that are the issue and not the physical disk. The Koch Lorber disk is available only in the US. Your argument holds no water - by your argument the French release with English subtitles is also available for import and of course that has the French title. You have yet to provide a single compelling argument. You just repeat the same point ad nauseum. Dohanlon 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And you still seem reluctant to have this discussion full blown on your talk page. Dohanlon 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kiev, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horlo (talk • contribs) 03:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Children_of_the_Century

I've filed a request in order to let things cool down over there. As I believe the record shows, I largely agree with you on the issues. And so far, so have all discussions here and at WP:FILMS and Dohanlon's talk page. It's been clear to me that he will not back down from the issue regardless of the consensus, so I gave up talking with him, as I believe that the situation speaks for itself. I would like to request you to do the same: at this point, both of you are merely dragging each other down another level and it's clear that the actual dialogue itself is gone. My recommendation is to back down, continue to watch his contributions, and deal with them accordingly through the appropriate venues. Remember, consensus is on your side - civility will only help, sometimes even more by way of contrast when you aren't receiving any. Girolamo Savonarola 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I tdon't think concensus is on reginmunds side if you revert to the talk page in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohanlon (talk • contribs) 12:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of List of events at the Millennium Dome

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of events at the Millennium Dome, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of events at the Millennium Dome is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of events at the Millennium Dome, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kiev. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

You have moved/retitled the above article to The Pit and the Pendulum (film). As you provided no explanation for your change, I was wondering if you could discuss your reasoning behind the move. According to Wikipedia´s film naming guidelines, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of original release as indicated by IMDb. For example, Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film)." That is definitely the case here, as there are a few other film´s sharing this same title. From my view, the (1961 film) qualifier is appropriate.-Hal Raglan 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. At least one other film, The Pit and the Pendulum (1990 film), has an article entry within Wikipedia. Per the guidelines I quoted to you, I have reverted your change. In the future, please provide explanations for any such major changes, either in your edit summary or on the article´s talk page. This is common courtesy to other editors.- Hal Raglan 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a link to the 1990 film in the short story article. I haven´t looked at the disambig page, but if a link is missing it should definitely be added.-Hal Raglan 00:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Church yard

Hi there, been a long time. I just noticed that you created the above page as a redirect, but it links to itself. Could you please fix it? Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bangalore

Hi Reginmund,
The Bangalore talk page is getting cluttered so thought I'd say hello here. I know that you've voted "Oppose" to the renaming of the Bangalore article, but I just wanted to know your reasons behind it. I recall that you gave an example of Calcutta and Kolkata but the fact is, if you search only English pages (as is recommended in this Wikipedia guideline page), you get ~ 2.3 mn results for Calcutta and ~ 2.26 mn for Kolkata.

The thing is, this convention mentions that "English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government". Kolkata or Mumbai have a time factor advantage. Both of the names were commonly used before Wikipedia was even formed. In fact, this is from the aforementioned link:

“ Bombay or Mumbai? Bombay officially changed its name to Mumbai in 1995; but this is not the basis for our choice of name. That depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our policy on National varieties of English. Both were necessary. ”

None of this is true for Bangalore. Yet, this important featured article was moved by someone without any consensus or discussion, which was IMHO, not in keeping with WP etiquette. In view of this and the guidelines above, I just wanted to know your rationale behind the opposition. I mean this honestly and without any hostility. Thanks. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Reginmund,
Okay, that's a lot clearer. Thanks for your time. And wow, that Kiev page is LONG! Good luck with that! :-) - Max ^{- You were saying?} 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fargo a British film?

It seems pretty ridiculous to call Fargo a British film when there's nothing British about it, except for where the money to make it came from. If you want to provide some sort of linkage between Working Title Films and Fargo (film), then perhaps you could reference some information about how the company contributed to the production? What do you think about that? Continuing along the same path of logic, Hot Fuzz could be considered a French film, because it was backed partly by Studio Canal, even though there's nothing French about it. — WiseKwai 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry to have disturbed you with this. After a night's sleep, I woke up and realized the issue isn't one I need to be concerned with today. Globalised, multinational productions are a reality I need to accept. Again, sorry about this. You've been patient in dealing with me, and I appreciate that. — WiseKwai 06:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cinema is ambiguous in American English

Please see my remarks at Talk:Movie theater. Thanks. --Coolcaesar 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv name

Please do not remove the notice of requested move from the talk page. This issue can be handled quickly and easily.

Would you agree that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names states that:

For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.

Would you agree that this is an official policy, as stated at the top of the page? Would you agree that "is used" means "for the name of the article", and that "also presented" means "also shown", and of course also used to create common redirects?

As far as debating over official spelling (which would indicate Kyiv) and common usage (which is highly debatable), would you agree that an official Wikipedia policy takes precedence? 199.125.109.19 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(UE) states:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

WP:NCGN states:

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always

English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists... Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places which are notable do have established English names, which often are the local name.

--Irpen 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are important generalities to use if there is not a more specific rule to follow. However a case can be made for both spellings being widely recognizable and widely accepted. Apparently the naming is evolving - the US embassy which uses Kyiv today did not start using it until last year, 10 years after the new spelling became official. In my opinion the most important thing is if I type Kiev into the search box do I get redirected to Kyiv, but with Kyiv also spelled Kiev so that I know that I got to the right page. That can be accomplished with a redirect. From what I can see so far the people who want to use Kiev really do not have any strong reason to do so, and the people who want to use Kyiv do. By the way having conflicting rules to follow is par for the course in many areas. Welcome to the real world. 199.125.109.19 06:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, I am not letting you to waste my time through explaining all over for the umpteenth time why Kiev as of now remains a common usage that establishes the article's name. You want to talk people's ear with your campaign? You've got the page for this conveniently located such that it does not disrupt the article's talk reserved on how to further improve the article's content. I was among those who wrote it. And when I have time for Kiev-article, I work on its content, not waste my time to read yours/Horlo's repetitions of same old and replying to them with what has already been said. Your not liking the outcome of the past discussion and the current name is understandable. But you can't rewind this time and again until the result is to your liking. --Irpen 07:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that I am an impartial observer. I could not care less what the article is named. However I insist that the issue receive a fair hearing and a fair discussion. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. 199.125.109.19 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to remove the template until you cease to disrupt Wikipedia. There has already been a formal move request on this issue. Reginmund 13:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And that however is disruption, for you to remove a legitimate request. Yes there was a formal move request, three years ago. And there is one now, which will remain open at least until September 15, 2007. Do you have any opinion as to whether the name should be changed? If you do I would like to hear what your opinion is. There is also a re-opened RFC on the topic. 199.125.109.78 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. There was a move request a month ago. I have already explained why Kiev and why the voters have chosen Kiev but Horlo refuses to accept the results of the poll due to his POV. If you want to see my arguments, check the Talk:Kiev/naming archives. I also won't hesitate to remove the template again if you put it up once more. Reginmund 06:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC

Please keep discussion in one place. A month ago would be July 30? That poll was closed in 15 hours because the admin thought that it had been proposed in bad faith. It has been re-opened in good faith, by me. I don't care if the article is called Regimund for all that it matters as long as Kiev gets redirected to it, so that people who do not know the correct spelling can still find Kyiv. I am going to ask you to put up the RM template so that the wider community knows that a request has been made. How about working together to find a solution? 199.125.109.78 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I considered this a personal attack on another user. But who knows, maybe I am just misinterpreting it and reading too deeply. Anyway, I have been given advice that it's better to wait on this issue. So now that I commented on the issue, that's what I will do. Thanks, Ostap 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack if it is true. I told Horlo that he lied and spun my words. You don't seem to be interpereting it but you are just taking my text without considering Horlo's filibuster. Accusations of lying, especially when they are justified are not personal attacks. Reginmund 01:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's up with trying to repeat the same mistake that was made on July 30, 2007 by attempting to close the discussion early? Just give it time, there are only a few days left. 199.125.109.35 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons WikiProject membership update

The Simpsons WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.

Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code #~~~~, in order to renew or cancel your membership.

If you do not comply with any of the choices, at the end of 1 month after this message was posted, your membership will be canceled and your name removed from the list. If you wish to regain your membership, just sign in again!

The The Simpsons WikiProject team – 16:20, 14 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Welcome to The Simpsons WikiProject

Hello, thank you for becoming a member of The Simpsons WikiProject. The Project has been around for over a year and has seen many Simpsons related articles improved exponentially. The members of the Project have achieved many successes, including getting an an entire season of The Simpsons promoted to Featured topic status as well as getting many articles promoted to Featured article and Good article status. For a full list of Project accomplishments, see this page. There are currently several drives within the project, including a drive to improve season 1 and a drive to improve the core articles of the project. If you would like to work on a page and need help, please see our guide to sources or the style guide. If you require any further assistance, please leave a message on the project talk page, or ask myself or Gran2. Once again, thank you for joining the project, and happy editing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden

As long as concensus favours the band as the primary topic, then that's the article that this redirect needs to point to. Your continued insistance that it points to the torture device goes against the result of the recent RM, as well as the comments made by the closing admin (on which I have already sought clarification). I'm letting it go for now since I have no doubt that you'll keep this up all night, and I for one shall respect policy regarding edit wars. PC78 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT? Or just plain old common sense? And you can stop throwing the word "concensus" around as if you actually have one, because there is none to support Iron maiden (torture device) as the target of the redirect. Don't expect a speedy reply to your inevitable response, as one of us has better things to do at this time of night. PC78 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm being quite civil thanks - if that wasn't the case you would surely know about it - and we have been discussing the redirect. The requested move seemed like common sense to you, but naming conventions and concensus disagreed. And the growing number of people who disagree with you over the redirect suggests a concensus of sorts there, too. PC78 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I understand that you disagree with the outcome of the requested move, but the way to proceed is NOT to revert-war on iron maiden. You broke the three-revert rule fighting a fairly lame edit war, and you should be blocked for that. I won't do it though, as you might not have been aware of it, blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and I'm now sort of involved (better say, dragged in) into the dispute. There issue whether the band is the primary topic for the title "iron maiden" is open to discussion indeed — it's not black and white, but the way to proceed is not edit-warring. Let me quote WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate:

When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

Not all readers are skilled (or are lazy, myself included) to use capital letters when searching.

Anyway, I reported the issue on WP:ANI#Iron maiden, yet again, and I'll try to walk away from the matter. Duja► 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:644px-Blair1 2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:644px-Blair1 2005.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need to copy images from Commons to here, just link to them as you would any images here. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Please stop recreating those pages. They were both speedily deleted twice, and repeated recreation of deleted content can be considered vandalism. As well, as creator the page, you are not allowed to remove a speedy template. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I do a regular check of any new pages that link to pages that link to The Simpsons in hopes of weeding out useless pages (ie. Q-Bert Spuckler) and I found your two redirects. They seem kinda pointless and a waste of space, because what is the point of having redirects for alternative spellings? And, at least two administrators agree with me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, should we also create an alternate title "Bart Has 2 Mommies" for those who like to take shortcuts? Or "Brat Has Two Mommies" for those who might make a typo? Or "Bart Has Two Mothers" for those who use the word Mother? Or "Bart Has Two Moms" for those who use the word Mom? We can create all kinds of hypothetical situations, but the official title (both in the States AND Britain) is "Bart Has Two Mommies", and redirects for alternate usages are unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you and I are never come to an agreement, so we should let others decide, and at least two administrators think such redirects are unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

?

What's your problem with my edit? Please use edit summaries, doing otherwise is very rude. -- John Reaves 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I guess I'll go ahead and remove everything in the disambig since none of them have outside sources and that's what you demand. -- John Reaves 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What about http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?acronym=HP&String=exact&s=r&page=2 ? It's in the top 25 there, that should be good enough. -- John Reaves 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HP should give you a good idea of how popular the usage is. -- John Reaves 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I give. I still say it's a popular abbreviation. Also, Urban Dictionary isn't a wiki. -- John Reaves 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

In case you haven't noticed, we don't have a lot of room. A good synopsis should only have 500 words and we are pushing the limit and thus can't go into details about minor points. It's also undue weight Why should a minor point like that be given two sentences, while major stuff like the time in Alaska or fleeing the dome be given one sentence? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Alexander Dovzhenko

• In Wikipedia:Requested moves is this move request: "*Category:Films directed by Olexandr Dovzhenko → Category:Films directed by Alexander Dovzhenko —([[Talk:Category:Films directed by Olexandr Dovzhenko#Requested move|Discuss]])— per the name change —Reginmund 07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)". But it looks like Category:Films directed by Alexander Dovzhenko has been moved to Category:Films directed by Olexandr Dovzhenko. What is going on? Anthony Appleyard 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, categories cannot be moved like files can and they have no "move" tab along the top. That request should have been put on WP:CfD. Anthony Appleyard 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments (1923 film)

Hi, have you seen the 1923 movie The Ten Commandments (1923 film)? I suspect you haven't, as the title change of The Ten Commandments (1956 film) to The Ten Commandments (film) seems to indicate you have never heard of the first title. This is in itself quite ok of course, there are lots of movies that I have never heard of, but it also means that extra care should be taken when renaming articles. Please respond to the last message at Talk:The Ten Commandments (film) to further discuss this matter or change the title back. I found no reason anywhere to explain the change. Thank you, 83.116.155.133 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Ten Commandments (disambiguation), well, there you redirected me to another part of the world that I had not seen before! Thanks and with greetings with Holland, 83.116.155.133 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Battersea power station

Why did you move this back? Simply south 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Earth (1930 film)

Hello. Twice you have removed a "citation needed" tag from Earth (1930 film) without providing a citation. Please explain why you have done this. Thanks. Doctormatt 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

request for comment on Hugh Hefner

Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage [2] and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to A Streetcar Named Marge

This was not actually a mistake. Strunk and White's Elements of Style says, "Omit initial A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them" (Fourth Edition, pg. 38). It's possible that Wikipedia's style guidelines say something different -and if so, please point me to the page where they do- but I did leave out the A on purpose. Zagalejo^^^ 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia style guidelines say something different, then I'll be willing to change it. But Elements of Style is used by many writers (in America, at least), and you'll find lots of books and scholarly articles that omit the "A" in that specific situation. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That comparison is somewhat misleading. In some cases, like this, the title is simply listed after the author's name. There is no possessive form in front of the play's title. Of course, you're free to look for a third opinion. User:Tony1 knows everything about the house Manual of Style, although he seems busy at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 02:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhh... I don't know. I think that makes the sentence slightly longer than it has to be. IMO, it doesn't read as smoothly. I'll think about it, though. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we do anything, I think we need to get a few more people involved in this discussion. Would you like to try Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Zagalejo^^^ 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony says to keep the A, so I guess that's what I'll do. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking him for some clarification. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Enemy

The bands article should be Public Enemy per WP:Use common names. Thank you! --West Coast Ryda 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the "Public Enemy" should link to the band not to public enemy. just like Ice cube and Ice Cube. West Coast Ryda 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gomel

We can go back and forth all day long. Article is titled Gomel - this should suffice for all naming convention "adepts" to just chill out for now. But the article will be written referencing to Homiel. We will take care of the title at the later time. Do you really care about consistency of the article content? So far you edits have had a pronounced "knee jerk" taste to them. Please refrain from editing this article unless you can contribute/share something other than "undo" clickomania. maksdo 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a pity to see that you have completely missed my point(s) and took an offence instead. Just chill out and don't be so overprotective.

1. It is not about the title... Title will remain as "Gomel" for now, as this is a consensus among cosmopolitan editors who have no knowledge (or interest) in the subject. But contents of the article will be re-written using proper transliteration into English: Homiel. This is decided by the person understanding the subject and contributing to the article. Currently you are not that person (but you very well could be, and I encourage you to do so).

2. No, you are not consistent. Go back to this article and count how many variations of this city's name you can find. Three? You edited it...

3. Editing for the sake of editing really hurts Wikipedia. You have to be very careful while protecting any perceived "status quo" and generalizations - these could be misleading. Everything under the moon changes, right?

4. I am not a "nationalist crusader" of any sort, but I prefer call things what they are without imposing restrictions alien to a native language. Yes, some names have been established historically, and may differ greatly from the local tongue; however, Gomel is not exactly one of the top 1000 cities in the world mentioned in The Times every week.

5. I did not say you cannot edit Wikipedia anymore. Instead, I have asked you to "please refrain from editing this article unless you can contribute/share something other than 'undo' clickomania". Material contribution, you know? Not the toggle war Gomel-Homiel. You call my edits as "inaccuracies", yours being "bureaucratic rubber-stamping".

6. I have looked at some articles that you have "riddled": yes, unfortunately those are "knee jerk", "bad faith" examples of editing, as if Wikipedia was your personal notebook. And there are a lot of people disagreeing with you. maksdo 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is like a bad dream: divine right, nationalist agenda, crusade the article, burst your bubble, troll. Whatever, man. I am not even going to comment on anything you've said. It wouldn't make any difference, wouldn't it? Talking to you is like talking to a wall, a cement wall. Oh, the feeling so familiar to other editors who have had an argument with you. I am sorry but you sound like an insecure, overreacting, overprotective, taking-everything-too-personally, unstable teenager. Relax, calm down, smoke a pipe, do whatever you like but just chill out for a second.

A lot of other editors out there have picked up this line as well: you are taking everything too personally and overreacting, your edits are intrusive and nonsense, you stick your nose where it doesn't belong, you start undo-revert fights and edit wars. Well, it still would have been alright (all of us do this once in a while) if your contributions were material and reasonable in nature. But they aren't. Judging by your talk page and having witnessed your edit-warring and pit-bull editing style firsthand, I have to agree with other editors: no, most of the time you do not understand subject of the articles that you are "editing". Your recent steam-roller drive-by shooting escapades serve as the ultimate example and proof of your complete incompetence and utter bureaucratic mindset:

• FC Dynamo Kiev
• Gomel IPA
• Gilbert and Sullivan

As a result, other editors (including me) are just backing out: you are the one who is proving your point in the end. I wish we could call a doctor. Danger, danger, Houston, we've got a problem!

I am almost finished. Friendly advice: listen to the people commenting on your edits and ... get a life. Or better off, get a girlfriend. Take a walk in the park, buy an ice-cream, the world doesn't end with Wikipedia. Don't be so stubborn. Politeness and sense of humor are always a plus. End of this discussion (well, for me at least), and I shut up. Maksdo 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for dumping. Those were your messages though. Don't you want to see your replies right next to my nastygrams? I thought we should keep this dialog together. Lets combine this conversation here, where it all started. Okay? Maksdo 04:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to

Calm down and stop taking things so personally. It is part of the GAC criteria that everything be in prose, and by prose, I mean sentence form with no bullets. Don't believe me? Try nominating a page with the Cultural refs in bullets and see what happens. Gran2 is a good editor, and I don't think anything he did with the PTA Disbands thing was out of line. You need to calm down and stop taking every edit that doesn't agree with you as a personal attack. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a good article?. It cites the MOS, and the MOS discourages the use of bullets. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk

I am sorry, but you have no permission from anyone else to change the redirect for warhawk.--Playstationdude 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are supposed to go to WP:RM to see if it is alright for a administrator to move the whole page, not copy and paste. I did the same thing you did once and learned my lesson.--Playstationdude 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but you can't just decide to do that. People have to agree with you.--Playstationdude 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for everyone, and most people will not want to see War hawk. Give me a good reason to have it as War hawk when there is six other things on that list.--Playstationdude 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Playstationdude there are other pages the disambiguation it should not direct to something most people have not heard of. It should go to the disambiguation or the actual game, note that if the reader wanted "War (space) Hawk" then they should type in "War (space) Hawk" not "Warhawk" (one-word). -- Vdub49 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your response on my talk page; why would I have to suggest moving it, while you can just move it? -- Vdub49 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have reverted my redirect, I will not revert it within 20 hours because I am willing to hear your side, please discuss as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Vdub49 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk RFD

In order to stop the edit warring, I have listed this redirect at WP:RFD. This will bring the redirect to a wider community discussion so consensus can be reached. You may wish to state your position at the discussion once your block is over. -- JLaTondre 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Please stop edit warring on the Pulp Fiction redirect/dab page - it is a pointless waste of our time. Instead please discuss it so that we can reach a compromise (though really it being a disambig page is the compromise). You mention that there has been previous discussion but there hasn't been very much really, so your response at Talk:Pulp Fiction would be appreciated. violet/riga (t) 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Kane

I looked at the talk page to see what your arguments were in this recent dispute, and didn't see any discussion related to it at all. Did you forget to use the talk page to discuss the situation before entering into edit-warring? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

I thought you'd want to know that you have now exceeded the permitted number of repetitive reverts according to the three revert rule. I know you feel strongly about this point, but a solid consensus of other editors does not agree. You should exercise some care if you continue editing the Gilbert and Sullivan page. Marc Shepherd 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries basically cover it. Several of us do not believe the possibility of confusion is sufficiently plausible. I don't know what more could be said to satisfy you. I know that Wikipedia doesn't strictly make its decisions by voting, but when the number of editors opposing a change significantly outnumbers the one editor who favors it, that tends to settle the matter.

Looking over the history of your talk page, I must say that getting involved in these types of "edit wars" seems to be a habit for you. And it is usually about fairly trivial matters, like disambiguation, article naming, and so forth. If I were going to take the risk of getting blocked, I would choose something more important to argue about. Marc Shepherd 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA for Gomel

Where did you find /ˈɡɔmʌl/ form? Your form doesn't even correlate with the source you're using as a cite! It gives /g′mel/. It is very far from Belarusian and Russian forms (IPA: ['ɣomʲelʲ] and IPA: ['gomʲilʲ]), and such a trusted sourse as Webster (Gomel form is also given there, look beter, [3]). So I wish you to revise your position 'cause it's totally wrong. Unomano 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So how can you use that source for giving IPA, if it's not IPA at all. And if you have listened that recording and wrote it down it doesn't become a proper IPA, it just means that you hear that way. I live in Belarus and I can tell you that your version is far from I have ever heard. Unomano 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, first of all, it doesn't make any sense to provide IPA for the name of this article since Gomel is just as much English word as Paris, Beijing or Athens. English-speaking reader is expected to pronounce Gomel in a more or less standardized or concise fashion. It does make sense to provide IPA for non-English variants of this toponym. Secondly, both your citation and IPA are unacceptable and wrong. Your external link does not qualify as a legitimate citation under WP:EL therefore your version of IPA is not cited. Besides website being of an objectionable reputation, the sound file has some questionable recording quality and pronunciation is unclear. As it was suggested by Unomano, you may use Merriam-Webster if you wish. Choose "Gomel" variant here. Your homemade IPA is like totally wrong. You have disregarded phonetic maps on your own reference and replaced "e" letter with /ʌ/ vowel instead of /ɛ/ or /e/ (the latter is cited in both M-W and your source). IPA and none-IPA maps are not that far apart for such basic vowels as "e" - mel portion of Gomel is still pronounced as Mel in Mel Gibson. Being an IPA expert you probably should know that /ʌ/ vowel represents "u" in plus or cut, hence /ˈɡɔmʌl/ does not map to English Gomel. Maksdo 11:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, you're walking on a very thin line; my finger is really itching over the block button for this salvage of insults. Probably the only reason that I don't do it immediately is that you ceased editing 10 hours ago, and that blocks are supposed to be presentative, not punitive.
That being said, your edit warring on Gomel is apparently a result of being plain stubborn, rather than any rational belief that /ˈɡɔmʌl/ is an accurate IPA translation. As far as I can tell, you're basing that on your hearing of the sound file on http://www.yourdictionary.com/gomel, rather than on the written transcription therein, and then you accuse other editors of original research?!
Consider this a final warning for incivility and edit-warring. Duja► 11:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my userpage

I would appreciate it if you would not make edits to my userpage. Thanks. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Language

I have heard "omnibus" during my lifetime but I have never heard "perambulator": I've only ever seen it written. How can you then tell me that omnibus is "archaic" and not in use, but perambulator is? You might like to write to the London Omnibus Traction Society and tell them to stop using that name because Reginmund has officially declared it to be archaic. You need to understand that although you might feel a certain way about certain words, not everyone else shares those feelings - and when you dictate what a word is - or isn't - then you're not necessarily right. EuroSong ^talk 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not decree that "perambulator is archaic". I merely said that I never heard anyone say it. I never said that no-one uses it at all. Now... you said "I only base my information off what is right". Please tell me your source for what is right and what is not. EuroSong ^talk 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter mediation

Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) and agree to mediation regarding the re-titling of this article. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed

The RFC at Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) has been closed, please do not add any more discussion to this section. Thanks, Metros (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of your persistence with adding the comments back to the RFC despite its closure, you have been reported for 3RR violation at WP:AN3#User:Reginmund reported by User:Metros (Result: ). Your past history of edit warring waives the need to warn you when you reached the third revert. Metros (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive reverting

You've been excessively reverting. You may be blocked for this. However if you agree to stop reverting and let the issue drop, I'll recommend against it. If this is your intention, you better hurry- someone may come along and block you at any time. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, it looks like you haven't edited in an hour, so maybe you can't respond in a hurry. Anyway, I'll not block you, but I can't stop anyone else from doing it. However if I see you reverting again, I'd agree that a block is called for, without reservations. Friday (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Friday is talking about your excessive reverting on London. Just in case - While you have not breached 3RR, you are reverting the same edit a lot, over a period of days. ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). A few of these are since Friday's warning. I also note you have been engaging in discussion on Talk:London, also. Discussion is good - please, keep it up. Edit-warring is bad - stop that, now. Neıl ☎ 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Harry Potter arbitration

This is to notify you that there has been a Request for Arbitration filed in the matter of changing the article title of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)" to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". You can view the current request and make comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sorcerer.27s_Stone_vs._Philosopher.27s_Stone. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You were warned just a few hours ago to stop edit warring, and you promptly do so again on Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)‎ - [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. As your previous and recent one month block for incessant, petty, tendentious edit warring did not reform your continuing inability to work with others, your next block is for three months. I hope this will finally encourage you to edit constructively upon your return. Neıl ☎ 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Reginmund (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Allstarecho lied to you. I have watched the Chris Crocker talk page and there has not been a response to the discussion in over a week. I still welcomed discussion[16] even though consensus is clearly against keeping in the material. In spite of this, Allstarecho has the nerve to claim that I refused to discuss the matter when I was consistently engaging in discussion and waiting for a response from him. I kept removing it since Allstarecho refused to discuss the matter, yet continued to add the content in. Reginmund (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Revert warring is not constructive. The content you were removing was sourced and neutrally written. There is no 3RR exception that would apply. I believe that the 3 month block is excessive, but if you do not believe your actions were in error, there is not much to build on as far as considering a reduction. -- B (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another administrator will respond to this, but I will reply to point out that "rightness" or "wrongness" does not matter - you were told in no uncertain terms to stop edit warring, and you once again continued to edit war. Neıl ☎ 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

3 months is excessive if this 3RR violation is the only offense since the last block. If this is the only offense, it should be reduced to a week or so - 3 months is just punitive. Reginmund, yes, as Neil said, you were edit warring. Please see WP:3RR for kinds of edits that are exceptions to the 3RR rule - this edit does not qualify. --B (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is less than a month since Reginmund's fourth block for edit-warring ended, which was a month long, and clearly had no lasting effect([15]). The block is preventative - it prevents Reginmund disrupting articles through tendentious and repetetive edit-warring. Neıl ☎ 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things to point out here. One is that he was warned at his prior block that his next one would probably be indefinite (so there was that "threat" hanging out there, so it was known that if he revert warred again, he'd probably see harsh enforcement). But he has been revert warring in the last few days at other pages. He broke 3RR at Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) by constantly restoring his commentary to a closed RFC. He was warned for that but not blocked. Reginmund has also been slow-revert warring at London where he's reverted about 5 times in the last 4 days. Metros (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Three months is still excessive. One month was excessive before. Given the repeat violations documented here, 2 weeks might be appropriate. 3 months is way out of whack, though. --B (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to jump in this fray, but I have to say - three months is seriously out of calibration with the community, I think. I strongly recommend that you consider reducing this block. - Philippe | Talk 03:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reginmund, if you will promise to stop edit-warring (on any article, not just the Chris Cocker article), I will - against my better judgement - reduce the block to a month. Neıl ☎ 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine

Reginmund, I listened to those defending you (for some reason) and gave you an opportunity to pledge good behaviour and reduce the block length, and instead you make edits like [16]. It's no problem - you can stay blocked for the full 3 months. Neıl ☎ 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A potential chat session with Bill Oakley

We at the Simpsons WikiProject have managed to get into contact with the one and only Bill Oakley (who showran The Simpsons from season 7 to 8) and he has agreed to send us some images and to do an IRC chat in the future with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NoHomers.net, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Every member is more than welcome to take part, which will be held at our #wpsimpsons channel. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat, a page has been made where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. If you have any questions, ask myself, Xihix (who is the one in contact with him) or post it at WT:DOH, which is where any future updates will be posted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 presidential election

I noticed you have edited 2008 presidential election. There is a small revert war on right now, and I would appreciate your comments on the Talk page. Thanks. --Kmsiever (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: Indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, proven by checkuser. Cut it out, and stick to one account, or all your accounts will be blocked for good. Thatcher 15:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, since this was the account with the most edits, you can sit out the 3 month edit-warring block and then resume using this account. Thatcher 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Food bag

I have nominated Food bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raj

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Raj. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Apeshit

The article Apeshit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Probably not true

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bowlderdash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bowlderdash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowlderdash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kÿowia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kÿowia. Since you had some involvement with the Kÿowia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

-ess listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect -ess. Since you had some involvement with the -ess redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 08:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Split profession listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Split profession. Since you had some involvement with the Split profession redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of JStar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JStar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JStar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Plastic shoes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plastic shoes. Since you had some involvement with the Plastic shoes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

American War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American War. Since you had some involvement with the American War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

James the Shit listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James the Shit. Since you had some involvement with the James the Shit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Der Panther

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Der Panther requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Der Panther for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Der Panther is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Der Panther until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Useless S. Grant listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Useless S. Grant. Since you had some involvement with the Useless S. Grant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Iorn" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iorn. Since you had some involvement with the Iorn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Iorn" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Iorn should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Iorn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Stormy Weather (ilm)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stormy Weather (ilm). Since you had some involvement with the Stormy Weather (ilm) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 14:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wading" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wading. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#Wading until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"Kyiv Offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kyiv Offensive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kyiv Offensive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Shock(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shock(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § Shock(film) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)