User talk:Ward3001/Archive 3

Useful warnings

You may or may not have noticed in the comment for those warning dealies that I got the idea from User:Adam1213/warn. You might want to see how he did it and see if you like better the messages that he uses. Either way, these are handy for sending warning messages to vandals, and then if they continue vandalizing, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV and action is more likely to be taken since they were "adequately warned". One caveat that I got from a user once is that these abbreviated messages don't fit the wikipedia "standard" for warning messages. My take on this (and apparently Adam1213's also) is that a vandal knows exactly what he's doing and is more likely to read a single, pointed sentence than a wordy paragraph. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment possibly for you!

You might want to have a look at this comment and this thread. --Maniadis (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Message from Paul

Not sure if your going to get this or not, but Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate source for Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, etc., endorsed by many of the artists featured there themselves. The bio information would be considered very uselful by WikiPedia users....this is not spam. Please reconsider your deletion of the bio links we posted and get back to me either way at paulmaze@techwebsound.com.

Thanks!

Hi, I've copied this message here from the misplaced location, since I've requested the page be blanked for housekeeping purposes. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Webkinzman, again

This clinched it--blocked 24 hours. Blueboy96 04:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a Problem

Thanks for the compliment. I keep a good number of pages on my 'watch list' and sometimes monitor discussions even if I don't participate. I noticed that this particular discussion was in the early stages of nasty, so I just wanted to give a friendly reminder so that no one gets their feelings hurt later. We are all guilty of a bit of incivility, even if we are not aware of it, and I am not immune to it either. I sometimes have to take some time before I make comments too. A trip to the mall always helps, or I just pop in a DVD and watch it with my kids. We can't let editing wikipedia control our lives to the point that it is really all we do. I'm not pointing fingers either, I just thought a friendly word would help. Thanks again and Happy Editing--Jojhutton (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)\

Atheism and Adminship

Thanks for your note. For the record, I don't consider atheism to be 'anti-religion' either, I have no disrespect for anyone who has faith - I envy them in a way - I just ask that they don't impose their beliefs on me. Also, I have no desire to receive an adminship anyway, so even if I did think that the administrators were biased in some way, it hardly affects me. Thanks again for your note. --6afraidof7 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr heads up

Please see my warning. --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

As you may (or may not) have seen, I am posting some material for potential inclusion in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article. One thing I know that I have noticed is an extremely high degree of vandalism.

The articles I usually write or to which I contribute tend to be "fringe topics" at best. Traffic is minimal and a quick look at the "history" section typically reveals that my three-month-old edit was the last.

You are responding to what appears to be regular assaults on this article. Please keep up the good work. I THANK YOU for doing so and I wish you all the best in the future. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. In my humble opinion, the vandalism by "24.107.222.59" was about as low as it gets. I am amazed at how many vandals appear to be drawn to this particular article. On a rare occassion I sometimes update sports information. I haved noticed that those articles too are being vandalized all the time.

By the way, "68.149.153.29" got it right when he reverted his own revision. April 14 is documented on page 22 of Twenty Days. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Abraham Lincoln assassination. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will go look, but could you please specify what change you are talking about? Thanks! 98.117.222.127 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion

I have added a new section pertaining to all the linking in the main paragraphs which I feel are unnecessary and are clutterng it up. Even though I added about half a dozen of them myself. Please see the discussion and let me know what you think. Wontonkok (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My Image

Thank you for the clarification. As for the image copyright status that I put in when I first uploaded it, I was mistaken for another image I was putting in. In any case. I would like to know why the lennon/mccartney image is different then the Kray picture by David Bailey. I believe that one is a copyright as well. An explanation from you without harsh words will be appreciated. Thanks. username:Chasesboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasesboys (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I thought talk pages were TO talk about the movies. Well. Since I know know I will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Stone Cutter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.1.1 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yer a pal. Precious Roy (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Facial Expression

You removed a valid link I added to an external links section of the facial expression page. The approach shown on that website is a non-traditional way of looking at facial expression, it picks up where Duchenne couldn't go further giving the technology of the time. Can you explain why this in not relevant? Artifacial (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very Confused

I was notified of new messages today. When I checked them, it seems that people are mistaking me for someone else or something -- I was accused several times of editing things inappropriately -- and actually, to my knowledge, I've never even *read* the articles in question. I'm quite confused as to what to do about that -- Not that I have any desire to edit anyway, so I wouldn't be hurt much by having those priveleges revoked. It's just that I do not like to be falsely accused of anything. 209.183.32.47 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Derek W.

Recent Psychology Template edit

I think I may have balled up my attempt to undo a bit of vandalism (something like Roxy Socks was added by a vandal) to the Psychology Template. I am not positive, but I think I was editing about the time you edited the act of vandalism away. I either succeeded in editing the Roxy Socks addition out or unwittingly restored the addition that I wanted to delete. I didn't mean to get in the way of your edits. I feel the same opprobrium toward the vandals.Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Beatles

Here is the source [1]. Thanks for the reminder.  Marlith (Talk)  03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

G. K. Butterfield

Just a reminder to be careful of WP:3RR there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix

The stuff I have changed/added is verified by the previous refs, it's just a different interpretation/wording, or a correction.78.150.135.45 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you asked me "Why?"

In their article, Categories about English people (Category:English singer-songwriters etc. NOT Category:British singer-songwriters) are used. Why is Category:English people of Irish descent use impossible? I ain't gonna do wrong thing. --61.26.82.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Death penalty in Italy

please read the article Capital punishment in Italy.

The statment about the fact that Serenelli can be sentenced to death is false because death penlty has been abolished in Italy for common crimes since 1889 with the new penal code of Zanardelli.

Pulp Fiction

I'm a little offended by your rationale for undoing my edits on the movies page. You call them unnecessary and unexplained.... first and foremost, I rarely justify an edit. If only edits that are explained are kept, we would not have any. As far as the necessity of them, that page is in severe need of cleanup, which is what I did. The Lineage section that I created and now wasted a half hour of my life on thanks to your quick=triggered undo was 100% relavent and in fact quite interesting.

I understand that sometimes peoples articles can become a pet project, but a simple undo is usually very harsh. If you disagree with an edit, let me know, and work it out, instead of playing Judge, Jury, and executioner. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have flown off the handle a bit, sorry if I seem to over-react. I guess my main point is that I don't mean to be rude, I am simply a bit aggrivated. Please understand where I am coming from as far as undos go!!!! Rough day in real life. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 05:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bixby Letter

First of all, what is your position with Wikipedia? Why did you erase and threaten instead of communicating with me how I might reference this other than to say where it came from? I added as a reference that this information was from Massachusetts Town Births and 1850 Census. You erased my resource and my information. I am, in addition to being a psychology professor, a professional genealogist. (1)I stated where I got the information. (2) You state I made "controversial edits." Nothing I said was controversial. Those who state that someone deserted was being controversial. I am sharing genealogical information only. I do not see the source for Abraham Lincoln's birth date or George Washington's birth date in Wikipedia. (3) I have never added genealogical information to Wikipedia that was not substantiated by birth records, death records, or census records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the citation of ancestry.com. There are census books and there are a number of websites including ancestry.com that have the census and the Massachusetts Births. One must be a member of ancestry.com to actually see the evidence directly. Can I just show ancestry.com as the citation? Can the 1850 U.S Census be a citation somehow? It is a fact that no matter whose copy of the 1850 census you look at, it will be there. Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

Many of the edits by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.165.95.70 are obvious vandalism but I believe many less obvious edits are also vandalism which have gone unnoticed but brings the accuracy of those articles into question. I've reverted quite a few but I chose to stop being an ongoing contributor a while ago so I hope you have the enthusiasm and motivation to deal with this more completely. 59.167.50.24 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I could care less

I don't take the internet seriously. I don't care about bullshit rules on a website, because they don't matter at all. There are some things I will follow just out of respect, but when I see pure & utter bullshit..I call it. Thank you though, but I really don't care. =] Blindeffigy (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't care if Wiki IP blocks me. Now you're becoming just like everyone else. Don't tell me how to act, please. You don't know me, because this is just the internet. It's pathetic the way this website is run at times, and I have every right to call that out. I have every right to tell someone I think they are stupid, and I have every right to call bullshit. If sources said Lindsay Lohan was purple, when visibly not, this fucking website would note it. They do it with bands all the time. Bands who are obviously not a genre, are listed as such just because the biased magazines say they are. Coheed & Cambria are not 'new prog', but because some idiotic people think it's cool to say that..they are now listed as such. What if numerous sources said they were rap. Wikipedia ignores obviousness, because obviousness is hard to define. But there are some instances where obvious beats all, and that pisses me off. Blindeffigy (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Are you serious? Asking for a citation for Tisha Campbell-Martin's ethnicity is like asking a citation to see if Angelina Jolie is white or to see if Whoopi Goldberg is black or to see if Bill O'Reilly is Irish-American. The woman self-identifies as black. In case you don't know, there's a difference between light-skinned and white. The actress is light-skinned, not white. You're being a fool right now. Pandyu (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to destroy the black identity, right? I get it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandyu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I can see through you. Pandyu (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My responses here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the African American category. Sometimes things are a little too obvious for sourcing purposes. Please do not initiate confrontation over obvious edits. ►BMW◄ 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See the additional comments on the ANI page regarding this incident. Consider it closed before you go any further. ►BMW◄ 20:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor point

I don't want to stir up conflict between you and me, and this is a minor point that I can live with either way. But I'm curious why you made this edit since you didn't leave an edit summary. The link gives some additional information about King. If there was an article on King, the link would be to his article and would be entirely appropriate. But as I said, I'm just curious and don't plan to challenge the edit. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you created an article on King. Excellent! I assume you'll link it in the assassination article. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you approve. Mr. King seemed to be one of those people who rated at least a small article. If nothing else, the article links two totally unrelated (but very important) historical events with a person who was part of both. (On the other hand, I hope you are okay with my not adding the "Jack the Ripper" suspect who was rounded up after the assassination into the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'd like to apologize for my actions yesterday. Calling you those things was out of line and wrong. I did it in the heat of the moment. I am sorry. Pandyu (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Opps, Sorry

I forgot to read the talk page and I didn't notice the warning. Sorry 69.119.115.22 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes on assassination page

An editor has persistently changed a bulleted list (that I think you created) about those imprisoned after the assassination. Not only does that change create an inferior format, it deletes some interesting details. You may wish to comment on the talk page here. I can't revert it again because I don't want to violate 3RR. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article. Much appreciated!

I added a bit to the James W. Pumphrey article. It turns out he knew John Surratt and it was Surratt who introduced Pumphrey and Booth. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add your comments to the discussion the talk page, here, so that we can achieve a consensus. Vidor is quite persistent and likely will revert it back unless consensus goes against him. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add my two cents.

I reverted the material mainly to be able to what I indicated previously: "I am checking to see if what was removed is at least covered in the individual articles that are linked to the Abraham Lincoln Assassination article." Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maddyfan name changing

She did it again, are you going to get admins involved now? — Realist² 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvement is better than deletion - let's not discourage editors from contributing

I think the way you handled the (Legg and Hutter, 2007) issue on the Intelligence article was less than optimal. What a fuss for one reference! While I believe your intentions were good, long protracted discussions wear out editors and discourage them from contributing. Personally, I have come away wondering whether I should have a break from contributing to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must try to attract highly skilled contributors; skilled in the specialist domains, even if not necessarily in WP policy. Looking through your edits, it seems most of your recent contributions are reverts/deletions. It is good to expect high standards, but rather than simply using deletion as your tool I would like to suggest you try improvement - Wikipedia will benefit. pgr94 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? Just deleting it really doesn't get us anywhere! Treating peer-reviewed publications the same way as a vandalism is not my idea of improving an encyclopedia. Please read the article - it's good! pgr94 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My responses here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for not protracting so I'll leave you to restore the reference back into Intelligence in the form that you see fit. pgr94 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're pulling my leg. You've read the paper; you saw that there are a collection of definitions for "intelligence" from various fields. The paper is available from the author's website and it appears in a book and there is a link to the publisher's website. I supplied ISBN, page numbers, authors, title, volume and all the links in my edits that you have reverted. I can't see how I can supply more than that. pgr94 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paper, you know the source. I'm beginning to realise you like going back and forth for kicks. I'm sorry I don't have time for this. I think it is better we keep out of each other's way in the future. Here are all the details: A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. In B. Goertzel, editor, Proc. 1st Annual artificial general intelligence workshop, 2006.

paper

pgr94 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatles meeting Presley

The reason for not finding the facts in other biographies about Beatles or Presley I've written in the discussion forum or not knowing about the things is the language barrier. Since German is mostly spoken only in Germany and Austria and parts of Switzerland information do not cross over that barrier. I made the experience quite often between the two countries Germany and Italy - Information which is easy to get in the one country can be never heard of in the other. 87.162.6.2 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Woops!

There's always that banana skin to slip on, isn't there?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears

I've started a peer review for Britney Spears. I'd love to get this to FA by spring, so I'm going around asking for as much input as possible. If you'd like to help, it would be appreciated. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Brittflick_1994#Copyrighted_images

I count ten more that haven't been deleted yet, but should be. Enigma ^message 01:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon's Wiki Page

Hi, I am trying to edit David Peel into John Lennon's page. He played the John Sinclair show 10 for 2 and the David Frost show. Both mentioned in the wiki page, both leave out Peel. This is FACT! 100% sourcable.. we should i nmot be able to edit it? Is this not what wiki is for?

User:PhiMedia —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

My response here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: link

restore it is you want. i dont even understand what youre deal is. Smith Jones (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that, then i put your link back so i guess its case closed unless you have something else Smith Jones (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-editing the Clapton stuff I did. I wasn't happy with my stuff, but it was the best I could manage. Now, let's see how long it is there before some Clapton fanboy takes it away again. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.150.220 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Hey, Ward. You obviously have not heard the 2007 into 08 broadcast on the Dick Clark Rockin Eve. You can youtube it though and educate yourself. Otherwise, keep up the good work. You've a VERY important person and don't let anyone tell you you're not doing an awesome job! (p.s., thanks for the sandbox comment; touche!)--Lindsay (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward, I was trying to give you an opportunity to hear Clark's broadcast, presumably for the first time. As for YouTube as improper citation in that context for something Clark said on a broadcast, what do you propose? The reality is that someone attributed a quote to Clark on that night and provided no citation at all. I guess the best thing to do is to take out the quote altogether, because it's unsourced. Keep up the impartial, stellar work, Ward!--Lindsay (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you're the proper source. Not listening to it again on video. Your alleged memory from a year ago is the source; now I've got it. Then instead of listening to any number of youtube vids, which directly contradict "Ward's memory," I should instead footnote you, "See Ward 3001's noodle." I'm not sure that's so credible.--Lindsay (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

strangely authoritarian reversal of edits to page: Woodstock Festival

Ward3001

I am curious to know why you felt the need to revert my edits up to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodstock_Festival&oldid=262202301

I believe my contributions were valid and entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia.

Firstly, the festival was called Woodstock but was held in a place called Bethel some 70kms from Woodstock. This needed to be explained. The choice of the name Woodstock didn't happen by accident. The story of how Woodstock came to be called Woodstock was originally buried in scattered sentences in the text. I believe my paragraph drew this information together into a coherent explanation. I felt this explanation was lacking. I suspect many others would agree with me.

Secondly, Woodstock was not originally billed as a festival, as the curiously worded title on the poster makes clear. I believe it is important to draw attention to the language used in the original publicity posters as this reflects the spirit of the times, and should not be forgotten.

Everything in my paragraphs comes from the text of this page and one or two other existing pages. I did not add questionable information. I improved the presentation of the existing information. I believe that is a valid (indeed essential) function of a good Wikipedia editor.

I consider what you have done to be wrong, and against the spirit of Wikipedia. I have not reverted your edit. I have decided to try reason first, and to leave it up to you to revert your own heavy handed edit.

I do not know where you stand in the self-appointed hierarchy of Wikipedia, but if you do not reverse what appears an arbitrary reversal with no significant justification I will be forced to draw your behaviour to the attention of others in the Wikipedia contributor space.

If you do in fact represent the current Wikipedia philosophy then I am tremendously disappointed, as I have been an enthusiastic advocate for Wikipedia since I discovered it some 4 years ago, and a careful and serious editor of a number of important pages, the edits of which have now stood for long periods of time.

I think you should reconsider your position before I have to take this public.

Christopher Scott

201.4.101.65 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing not my fault

This is LitUpBC - I notice you told me to stop vandalizing pages, but I have done no such thing. On George Will's page, I left a comment that whoever had wrote, 'George Will is a pig', to be balanced about editing. Why do you think I would do that?

--LitUpBC (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)LitUpBC

Sign Language link

Hey, you just removed the two links I added to the External Link section of the Wikipedia pages "Sign Language" and "American Sign Language". These are good resources and should be included, if you don't like the wording then you should change it. There really are very few good online Sign Language resources. One of the sources I listed was something you have to pay for (online classes), but it is still a really good resource that has even been used by a Big Ten University for ASL instruction. The other link really is one of the best, if not the best, online Sign Language dictionary. It has larger videos than others I have found and it actually has a search box- something I've never found on online Sign Language dictionaries! Plus it's FREE! How are you going to take down a link to a FREE resource. These are both legit resources that are extremely good resources for those two pages. Why don't you just remove all of the external links on those pages? What makes some ok and others not? Do you know anything about Sign Language? Or the resources available on the web? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.230.75 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not own these sites! Not everything in the world is about making a dime.

And membership is not required at the dictionary site. Every single sign can be viewed for free without becoming a member.

I hate to break it to you, but I also added several of those other external links, so you might want to remove those too.

It's really not worth any more of my time. I guess Wikipedia wasn't the "open" resource I thought it was.

MLK

I would like to ask you in what way you considered that source unreliable and the paragraph after it POV. The source is autobiographic, yes it can't be proven, but so can't mr. King's autobiographic texts in some cases and many other memoirs, so until proven otherwise its factual. None of those comment on the populist tradition were POV, maybe unnecessary on the MLK article, but a needed background (based on the Populist Party (United States) article) neverthless needed for the background of an influence on his (and the Civil Rights Movement's) ideological background. But thank you for the advise, waiting for more suggestions and comments on this. user:Lususromulus

Don't worry, I'm gona bring this issue up on the MLK, Jr. discussion, page, but first tell me if you think this is considered enough evidence as I'm new to wikipedia and don't come that much anyway: The article on Jennings Bryan itself, and its sources, just like other across the web (I'm talking not of blogs or people talking of matters they don't know just because they have web space for it, but of trustworthy or at least scholarly sources, including partialy visualisation books about him in GoogleBooks [2] [see book at the bottom], here [3] or here [4], which shows how frequent the rethoric was in the Democratic Primaries of 1896. Although in Bryan's defence: he might not have been consistently racist, though there's little evidence of it, as the Indiana Academy of Social Sciences Proceedings, 1967' article "William Jennings Bryan and Negro-White Relations"), permite me to refer to him as racist without being inflamatory or POV. Do you think I should add this to the MLK article to prove my point in a new version of this paragraph or add this to the William Jenning's Bryan article? Because I think Jenning's racism is too well documented on the current article to that being needed. In this he wasn't different from most Southern Democrats of the time till reverend King's time (despite people like Harry Truman). And the fact his candidacy turned the People's Party more racist is indicated in the article on it. So I don't think bringing it up is needed as it would make the Populist Tradition subdivision and its reference notes too overlong unnededly, and if some one needs more confirmation should go to the Populist Party (United States) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The bold was signaling his name on the quotation and calling the readers attention to his role in the quotation (the part which matters for signaling/proving [not interpreting/forcing factuality on this] this influence). But I agree that people might interpret it like that; I will not repeat that edit. Any more discussion between us on this article's subsection would be pointless as it is already informative and factual enough like it is. Thanks! Lususromulus —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Spirit in the Dark

I'd like to know your opinion here.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure which part of my editing is considered "vandalize" Wikipedia by restoring the helpful informations. 96.249.147.36 21:19, 12 January 2009 (ET)

Amanda Bynes

I wasn't aware of that - I just added YouTube because I thought that, if possible, the citation to the two TV interviews ought to include a link to a site where a video of the interview can be viewed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Andy Griffith (January 2009)

You wrote to me: Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Andy Griffith. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please find a source that is not in future tense and that was published after the inauguration. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You must not have read when I revised my edit. I added News & Observer: Oh, the Places You'll Govern. That is from after the fact and it is from the Raleigh News & Observer. Awbeal (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Samatha Ronson

Sorry about that, I thought it was someone being over sensitive. PXK ^T /_C 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Swift picture

Hey, Ward3001, I'm just User:Christianster45, but another user messed up my password (pageant mispelt, and couldn't remember it). So I had to start another user, and the first thing on my talk page is something I din't committed. I never download a Taylor Swift picture, but "I" did because that same user did while I was still logged on. talk 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't she in CSI?? Why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipop1398 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Candice Wiggins

Hi,

I don't know about the sock puppetry, but I am still in assume good faith mode with User:Julianster about the Wiggins photo. The .jpg.jpg version, of which the one you just deleted was a copy, does have an attribution to a Flickr account which I believe means it falls under the appropriate copyright. It looks like Julianster may be learning. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

why do you keep removing the movie screenshots?Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I get both of you to cease reverting for a while?

I've been watching the battle between the two of you (Ward3001 and Anywhere But Home) from the sidelines, and I think the path the two of you are on is going to wind up causing trouble for everyone. There's just too much reverting going on, and, while I think a lot of the edits being reverted are of poor quality, not many of them could be classified as vandalism, or obvious violations of fair use policies or anything like that. Siawase and I both keep a pretty good eye on the article, and, if something too obviously crappy gets inserted, we'll take it out. If you think we've missed something, bring it up on the talk page. The way things are going, I can see blocks in the future for both of you, and I don't think that's the right thing to have happen. I'm putting this on both of your talk pages. Feel free to respond on either.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but I think it will be best if I act scrupulously even-handed, even if my inclination would be to favor one side. At this point, ABH has responded, but has not agreed, so this is probably a moot discussion. I don't believe in one-sided cease-fires. Whatever happens, be wary of 3RR ... an admin viewing the back-and-forth on this isn't going to treat most of ABH's edits as obvious vandalism.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?

How does making two one of which was a unique edit and the 2nd being a change of capitalization involve me in a an edit war? There is neither a content dispute nor a confrontation. In reference to "unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial," having a white mother would make someone a white American as well. From the article Kenyan American "Barack Obama, President of the United States of America of half Luo ancestry. Obama is also partly Dutch, English, French, German, Irish and Scottish descent." Also, take some advice and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Lenerd (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Hi. Here is a link to where I inquired about the about.com piece.[[5]]. Mary Fairchild, the author of the article is the other moderator of the forum. The other moderator has deferred to her for an answer. I thought you might want to follow it with me. I hope that you understand that I have never wanted the articles to say he is not a Christian. I really think that UCC is inaccurate at this point based on my reading of the church's constitution. Anyway, I'm glad we could agree on Christian until a consensus can be reached. See you on the talk page .( sorry if I was a little testy.)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that the Forum that is attached to About.com in which the author of the page on Obama thanks me for drawing the problem to her attention and says she needs to update the page would cast doubt on how reliable the very author thought her work was. Nah, that would require to great a leap of faith :)!Die4Dixie (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I went to where you suggested. If they agree that in this instance that it is a reliable source, I will cheerfully concede, as when I am wrong, I like to promptly, publicly and cheerfully acknowledge when my logic is faulty.

I suggest that we use my talkpage or yours to avoid the patently obvious attempts to pollute the well at RS. Your words have not been twisted. The situation is exactly as I described it there. No amount of meandering will change that I do not ant to use a forum as a reliable source, only to refute the reliability of a source that is not reliable even on it's face. There is no evidence of editorial oversight at about.com. The edit you refer to has been modified to just Christian. An accurate reflection of his state.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect. if you think that people are baptized into churches rather than into Christ, perhaps you don't have the requisite knowledge to discuss this intelligently. This is not intended to be a stab, but you don't seem to know much about organized Christianity.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha. A masters in Divinity. Then you should understand exactly how he is separated from the denomination. I am glad you do seem to understand that he was baptized into Christ and not some bastardized LDS/UCC ceremony. Perhaps we can discuss this intelligently. Perhaps you could explain to me, not for mainspace editing purposes how he continues to be subject to church discipline and subject to the church's hierarchy without membership in a local church, as well as your professional opinion of the implications of article 5 of the UCC"s constitution and Bylaws. You have earned a degree from a decent school ( if one were Methodist). Now perhaps Arminianists have a different take ( or Wesleyanists more properly) have a different take on membership, and if they do, I would love to hear an educated and thoughtful opinion.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice I said "if one were Methodist", not that you were Methodist. That you know object pronouns in Hebrew is impressive,; however, it looked more like Yahweh instead of you at the end( to my untrained eye). If you are not of the Wesleyan or Armininian persuasion, then that's ok by me, we might agree on some theological questions. I'm certain that in earning your degree, you studied church discipline and membership. Perhaps you would share from your knowledge. יהוה doesn't reveal things like denominations of Wikipedia editors to me. Nor if they are predestined and their name appears in the Lamb's Book of Life. It was written and sealed a long time ago. Perhaps I'll see you when it is opened :)! After your dinner, perhaps you could share what you learned at Duke about membership in a church, in The Church, and in the various denominations. Bon appetit!Die4Dixie (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you have finished dinner. I would really be interested on your opinion about denominational membership, if you could spare a minute, and where it flows from so I could better understand your position. I saw that you mentioned that he might have been talking to ministers behind the scenes in UCC. I imagine to repair the relationship with the denomination, he would have to make another public Declaration of Faith, and join a local congregaton. If that is errant, then could you explain where? Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil reply. In the faiths with which I am familiar ( Southern Baptist Convention, Orthodox Presbyterian, and PCUSA, with out a membership to transfer, there would still be a new public declaration before the congregation. In the case of the Orthodox Presbyterians, there is a vow to submit to godly discipline and church hierarchy ( most churches don't even pay much attention to this scripturally based covenant as people now a days resent anyone suggesting in anyway how they ought to behave). Article 5 of the constitution seems to say that membership in the denomination flows from local church membership. Do you believe that it is likely that my interpretation is right, but would be OR and thus not suitable for encyclopedic inclusion here?Die4Dixie (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I thought perhaps Methodist from the traditional relationship Duke had with the church. I was interested in Westminster, but lacked the requisite skill in Greek and Hebrew.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks etc

go ahead and get me blocked if you can asshole (or more accurately block the current value of my dynamic IP). But I actually don't edit the wikipedia now do I? You're the one who started the insulting as you are apparently a small-minded person who can't handle arguments that disagree with you. Please continue to waste your life on the masturbatory website.

Oh really? Please identify some other pages I've posted on.

And what "range would include the previous one plus this new one 70.234.20.207 (talk) for example

Everything you post implies you think you're smart but proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about. My first impulse was to pity you and move on after your dumbass "doctor is a degree" retort. But instead I decided to embarrass you because your response was insulting. Perhaps if you were less disrespectful to people you would have an easier time in life given your limited talents. Just a suggestion.

p.s. asshole.

Orange is where the ISP is located. That's all iplookup tells you. SBC is kind of a big company fyi. I don't live in that city or even that county. Another failure to prove how smart you are. And please blocks, bans, etc, bring them on. The threats are boring me. Prove your amazing powers. I already called bullshit. Repeating the bullshit is not a counter-argument. By the way I'm not changing IP's to hide from you, just to prevent getting that annoying notice at your response. Are you enjoying it by the way? At least you are learning some things. And look a vandal used this address several years ago. How ironic. 71.154.222.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

WP:Notable

I'm not certain that you have read the policy, judging from your comments. I have wikilinked to it for your perusal. Cheers.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the five pronged approach to determining notable. Especially presumed.Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind working for the enemy. You will probably want to say that it is notable( as it has been noted by practically every reliable source that has reported on the second oath) and instead argue from the fact that its inclusion would be predicated on WP:Consensus. You wont run the risk of appearing like one would if they were to argue, say, that About.com is a reliable source, and you would be absolutely correct. Consensus seems to be against its inclusion. My next remedy would be to request a wider input through a request for comment.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let not your heart be troubled. The "would" rather than "will" meant to say that it's not certain that I would. I really think that a broader input would just attract people who would know that it was notable, but argue for non inclusion because they think the fact is damaging in some way or that it might allow some reader to think that it had some sinister meaning. There are those in the conversation, and I exclude you, who are a little overprotective of President Obama for worries about his image. I do believe you had goodfaithed intentions about the UCC issue. There are those whom I suspect do not at the Bible issue. I'm willing to concede this for now. I'll probably revisit it later ( like month or two). I'll give you a heads up before I do. Happy editing>Die4Dixie (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand synth. I don't want to know for editing purposes, I was really asking what you personally believe or think based on your formal training and church experiences ( I presume church, since you have that degree). This question is not for use in debate on the article talkpake, but rather my personal curiosity. If you agree with me, that won't change policy or your position on policy one jot. I'm just intellectually curious.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoy this conversation more than the one before dinner. Sorry for being dickish. I really believe that Christian is the most accurate and least contentious option. If you wrote a thesis, could you tell me what it dealt with? Even though I prefer conservative reformed literature ( you probably guessed that), I still read other things.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see that someone has added "Protestant" to the Christian label and it appears later in the article. I'm certain that he is, but I think we need a cite for that to avoid OR. What do you think? Is that anal of me , or should it be sourced and not synthed from UCC is Protestant therefor Obama is Protestant? Seems like he is, but , what do I know?Die4Dixie (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the same article/press release, the clergyman indicates the Obama's are not "in fellowship" with the UCC. Do you think that that might contradict the idea that he is a member of the denomination. It seems confusing to retain something that one doesn't have, but I think it is crystal clear that he is not in fellowship there. What does a lack of fellowship mean?Die4Dixie (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have an email from the denomination. Email me so that I can forward it to you, as it clearly identifies me. I Don't mind sharing my identity with you, but there are members of the community whom I would prefer not to have that information.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you patience. I figured the Obamas were the antecedent for "anyone" : "We recognize that this has been a difficult, painful decision for the Obamas -- and a deeply personal one. It is also sad news for many members of the UCC, who grieve when anyone chooses to leave our fellowship, especially under such public and painful circumstances." The "public and painful circumstance" to which they refer would seem to reinforce this. What do you think?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have an email from the denomination. Email me so that I can forward it to you, as it clearly identifies me. I Don't mind sharing my identity with you, but there are members of the community whom I would prefer not to have that information.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You have mail. I spoke with Ms. Powell personally, and she was very understanding of our mission. If you you want to talk about it off the record, feel free to email me. Also feel free to use my talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed jpgordon an admin, and asked if he would email me back so that I could forward him the original and perhaps he could redact it. You are welcome to redact it and post it to the discussion page. I just saw my house on google map today. Don't want any crazies nor problems with my institution.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

jpgordon has agreed to redact it and post it.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will understand my comment at Talk Barack Obama and keeping it open. My tolerance for the canvassing on my talkpage is short. I found it insulting and patronising. In fact, I will suggest closing on second thought with his returning with the findings of the boards I reccomended he ask.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with us. I had origanally been in favor of keeping the discussion open until guy went and got his sources checked, then thought better of it and decided that he needed the sources oked first. We´re cool. I was pretty pissed at what I felt was a transparent appeal to emotion in his canvass job, and let him know it. I don´t have much tolerance for that.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Website

Is it okay if I upload images from another website because this user told me that could upload images from Flickr. I learned my lesson now and I will never upload a image from Flickr again. Thank you for telling me what I was doing wrong. Julianster talk 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

I mentioned this on Tvoz's talk page, but the end date of the current term was on George W. Bush's article, and I don't see how including it on this article is any different. Friginator (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was on the Bush article well before the elections were held. I think that it should be included, along with the date he took office. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Ward3001, I appreciate that my tone is scorning. You can see the message I just put up. It is inappropriate that people go around and shove up these tags without even following the guidelines for nominating in the first place. It is even more inappropriate that if the tagger changes his/her mind, then the nomination page shouldn't be deleted straight away. This is what I tried to do, and then I'm told I'll get blocked. If you believe that is appropriate, then we're going to disagree. I think it was clear from a moment's reflection that deletion was not appropriate. I really have no time for people who won't simply say "woops, I take it back" - so maybe my tone will alert people a little more starkly to the pointless endeavour, and change their approach. The point is, actions can be just as uncivil as words. Wikidea 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward, I probably would have done a non-admin closure of the AfD, as it should not have occurred. I have tried to show the various users involved the entire process (and got bit in the process), and indeed I now recommend the AfD go to the bloody end in order to "bless" the article so that everyone can move on, hopefully having learned at least the process. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Megan Good

I was asked to look at the talk page and before I delve into this much deeper, do you remember a woman who was banned not long ago who wrote and edited a lot of articles with a very strong black bias? Her basic work was quite good, but she was very radical and tenditious elsewhere. I cannot remember her username, but this sounds a lot like the rants she would write, and if memory serves, she didn't sign her comments all the time either. Together with this incident and the new account/familiarity with WP, I'm wondering if this is her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack, never mind, I found the name of the person whom I was thinking of and she wasn't banned and is still active. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Would be opposed to me striking out or removing the personal attacks and nonconstructive off-topic comments made by Godiva and from the Meagan Goode talk page? I don't think half of what was posted is in line with talk page guidelines and personal attack really have no place here. Any objections? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Head's up Re: Dr. Phil edit

I think I got it in a way that works, consistent with the comment from the editor who said that the stuff about the license should be done below, rather than at the top.

Please comment on the discussion page ... I started a new section at the bottom for this.

Thanks. pgm.Pgm8693 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. The references are good. Let's call it a compromise rather consensus on "not a psychologist" ... I may take another swing at that sometime later. As noted, he says he retired from psychology.

Best regards. pgm. Pgm8693 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It could be while ... losing interest in the issue relative to the demands of my day job. If I go back at it, I'll give you a head's up. pgm. Pgm8693 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment wanted

Could you please take a look at Sean Penn, Talk:Sean Penn, Marisa Tomei and Talk:Marisa Tomei and please explain to this person that he is asking for an unnecessary cite for a film role listed as uncredited for each of these. I tried nicely, I tried firmly, and now I'm getting annoyed, which is never a good thing. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask for Wildhartlivie or me to come to you talk page, and I apologize for any intrusion. I need to note that canvassing is considered a breach of Wiki etiquette, and that Wildhartlivie did not frame his request in a neutral fashion. I've already asked for admin help, before even seeing this. Thank you, and again, my apology. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on my talk page, and your kind follow-up. With all respect, I can find no policy/guideline justification for what you say about citing IMDb. With all sincerity and all due respect, can you point me to one? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I understand what you're saying -- my point isn't to not use IMDb generally. I merely asked for citation requests on two specific points of uncertain provenance. There is no good reason, I believe, to block citation requests in such cases. I'm not arguing against including the information -- I didn't remove it, of course. I only asked for citations; that's a very reasonable request, and I'm hoping you can agree in these two instances. Put it this way: How does it hurt to ask for a less controversial source? Why block that? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stokoe

Can you give an example of a tab or sig that you think is not iconic? They are all transparently iconic to me. kwami (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course x is iconic for touch/contact, at least in the US. In instruction guides, for example, 'x' marks where two parts come together. Are you really saying that the symbols are arbitrary, and it's just coincidence that every single one of them makes intuitive sense? kwami (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet

why have i been accused of this? I just set up an account today for the first time. please explain if you would. thank you Ivegota10inchgland (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

Hi, would you mind reading Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots and leaving feedback on my page about suggestions on how to advocate for policy change? Also, I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#Suggesting_immediate_removal_of_arrest_from_the_article_for_BLP_concerns, Talk:Rihanna#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu

Technically you're allowed to blank your talk page if you want. Anything he deletes is still in the history. HalfShadow 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally someone blanking notices or removing anything from their talkpage is considered acknowledgment that they have read it. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi Ward3001, I have no idea where to get images to put on wikipedia. Where are the best images found on a website? If you know tell me and if you don't know, do you know anybody who does? --Julianster | talk 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.73.211 (talk)

Solid sources

Magazine scans and first-hand scans will take a while obv. *disappears off broomstick style Dick Emery style* or whoever it was. Ooh, I am AWFUL... but I like thee

Brevity is the soul of wit 02:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preying Mantus (talk • contribs)

Duly noted, my respectful Anglophile

Thank you kindly for the respect shown to those across the pond, particularly new members, one musn't dare sound supercilious or incomprehinsible with irony toward Americans, must one?

But yeah, you're right.. sincerely, I'm a newbie. Thank you kindly. xoxo *goes off to play croquet* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preying Mantus (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input regarding behaviourism

Thank you for your very sensible comments regarding the proposed deletion of either the category "behavioural" or "behaviourist" psychologist. I am inclined to agree with you - keep one category, call it behaviourist psychologists, and if there are disputes about who should go in, we can resolve them on the article's talk-page. Many thanks for taking an interest in this, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice some of your templates on your user page, and I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever to Wikipedia, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

quit it ward...

Mr. Ward dude, never undo my edit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.9.26 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

um...

Ward, just leave it the way it is! quit changing my shit

how?

How is that vandalism? I don't understand. Justme89 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont see what the big deal is..i changed one minor thing and you get all upset. it wasnt even a big deal i am not even trying to be in a war. you basically started this, by changing my edit to begin with. this site lets anyone edit...did you notice? anybody! so, i dont see what the big deal is. im sorry if i offended you or anyone else, but im not trying to start a war or cause harm. i find this a bit absurd...because that was not vandalism at all. i had to disagree there. Justme89 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you know what Ward, i hate you. go to hell.

the article seems fine to me! there is nothing wrong with it! i dont have to change anything dude, come on! there is no vandalism! Justme89 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: February 2009

Well, this is the proper source List of Saturday Night Live episodes#Season 34. This is the most correct up-to-date list. Cheers, Abdallah (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ali Lohan

Why this revert if she released a single in Christmas 2005?—Kww(talk) 03:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my edit?

This is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia article, but I am pretty sure that I did the right thing. I'm the one who edited the deaf-mute article to mention The Stand in Deaf-mutes in art and literature. Did I do something wrong? Why did you undo my edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.17.228 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

deaf-mute in The Stand

If I recall correctly, King did not use the term "deaf-mute". I'm sure King conveyed that the character could not hear and did not speak, but I don't think he used the term "deaf-mute" to describe the character.

I appreciate your response. I've gone back and double-checked my copy of The Stand (an e-book of the unabridged version) and found several places where Stephen King and the characters refer to Nick Andros as "deaf-mute." Some quotes:

"I'm Nick Andros. I'm a deaf-mute."

"I can't send Nick, he said weakly. "He's a deaf-mute."

The doctor observed Nick’s puzzled face, and seemed to think the deaf-mute might not believe him.

The worst part about being deaf-mute was not living in the silent movie world; the worst part was not knowing the names of things.

As I noted in my edit, Nick isn't just "mute" in the way that deaf people who don't speak are derogatorily referred to: he literally is unable to vocalize at all (this is what people generally call "muteness" when they mean to refer to Aphonia.) So, Nick is literally deaf (unable to hear) and mute (unable to use his vocal chords,) two unrelated physical conditions occurring at the same time.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.17.228 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 

WHO ARE YOU

WHO ARE YOU.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FELANGI (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey

Thanks for the heads up re Brexx, but it seems I was offline during all the action. Seems he's getting more and more disruptive too, sigh. Feel free to let me know if you spot him again in the future, I only have a few of his "favorites" on my watchlist. Siawase (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

--Kreykh (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Hello, ward3001! I have place the new very interesting article about the [Measuring Intellect][6] . I think it could be linked or reference perfectly in your [Intellect] article as well just to expand on this notion and extend the article scope and perspective a bit. Any of your suggestions will be welcomes. Thanks. User Kreykh [[7]] --Kreykh (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Saes-7 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Hello, my link on Indigo children link titlewas delited and marked as spam. But the link was added at the request of the author, who first came to Wikipedia in order to share their knowledge with others. What to do to restore the link? User Saes-7 [[8]]. Thank you. Hello, I am not sure why my link was rejected, it is a fansited for the movie troll, it has great film info on it. I just throught other people would like to see it, it is not a spam site, not is it advertising anything, there is no where to purchase anything on the site. Why would it be deleted? It seems to follow the guidelines.

Agree

I agree it is a powerful statement, but come on now ward, the entire planet Earth knows this is a true statement, very well, I will look for a solid source. Chasesboys (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a solid source Ward? http://www.theinsider.com/news/1154416_John_Lennon_Film_NOWHERE_BOY_to_Be_Made Chasesboys (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

I'm not saying the film wasn't controversial but adding adjectives in the intro makes it rather obviously POV. The facts about the controversy and the financial success should be dealt fully and properly in text of the article rather than in the intro.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

I don't mind you deleting those external links on Taylor Swift's wiki page. But those link are official links. Please check out sites of Universal Records, Taylor Swift's Official Facebook and the content on those sites. It is not because fansites claim they are official and they are.Lollipop1398 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

George Harrison

Thanks for changing the image back. Even he would want you to. Sposato (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You son of a bitch, how dare you revert my edits!?

Just kidding. I started out trying to improve the edit previous to mine, which added the link to List of awards received by Paul McCartney. After your reversion of my edits I went to other articles, like The Beatles to prove that "see also" links were in fact links that were also in the article, but quickly found that I was wrong. Long story short, thanks for teaching me something new. Belasted (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of my title, do you happen to know the proper way to end a loud question? Is ?!, !?, or does it even matter? Thanks. Belasted (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude

Turns out we've been dealing with a bunch of sock puppet accounts regarding the Marc Sinden info. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's banned indefinitely. The Liverpool news source seems legit, although I'll double check it. Not sure about the Daily Mail one given we had to assume on good faith that it was accurate, but we probably don't need that one anyway if the Liverpool source is valid. I still don't think them showing up in the video is worth noting. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no inappropriate discussion. i repeated a question. you are deleting from an open forum page.Mobydick123 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my word yesterday that I would not create or use any 'sock' accounts. I have kept to my word and so do not appreciate being accused of breaking my word. I am not connected in any way with "Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks". This is now dissolving into a personal & libellous attack. Please cease and desist. If you continue to inaccurately accuse me of lying I will report you for making personal, unfounded attacks. I am copying this to your individual talk pages as well and would appreciate an apology. I have however left a question on the consensus, but otherwise am staying out of this. Captainclegg (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I utterly reject and refute your notice that I have made any personal attacks or comments about you. How dare you say that when your constant, beligerant comments about me and your refusal to accept in good faith that I am not a sockpuppet of anyone is boardering on harresment. I have read the appropriate pages on Wiki notes and can see that I have not made 'personal attacks' on you in the terms described. To say that you are a bully is an opinion based on my personal experience of you and as such is not an offence. Your latest comments on the Wikiproject Beatles page is a perfect example. I ask you here and now: Who or what do you think I am or are connected to? Stop pussyfooting, insinuating and hinting. Say it. Then we can all see you for what you are and we can take this to the very highest level to stop your dreadful and unjust behaviour that is not worthy of a Wikipedia community member. I am, in a spirit of consiliation, more than happy to go to third-party mediation on this issue. 94.194.100.228 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, let us finish this now. Let my catagorically state for the final time: I AM NOT CAPTAIN CLEGG or anyone else (sock or meat). I have no idea how to prove this to you or how either of us can prove it otherwise. If you know of a way and I can do it, tell me. I frequently change IP addresses. I am not prepared to go into the reason here, but if you knew what my expertise was, you too would understand. There has to be, at some point, a degree of Good Faith. How do we know Clegg isn't Yoko Ono! Let me state this without reservation: I am not Clegg or anyone other than me. I am not a sock puppet. I am (was) enjoying being part of the Community. Can we PLEASE call a truce, accept that we had different views but the same intentions and accept (perhaps) the compromise solution that I have left on the Talk:Hey Jude page. I would be happy to let this drop. I would just like to know that you are giving me the benefit of the doubt and beleiving me when I say that I am not lying to you. I can think of no other solution. Can we do this? 94.194.100.228 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Monsterandbenjamin

Blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Lolita - Name changes

i meant, if you will mention both names, at least give a reason, the plot a number of names possible for that girl yet why start off with annabel and then lead it to Lolita? the first time her name is mentioned it starts with annabel. but then automatically switch to Lolita with out consent? i suggest we stick with one name when the girl is mentioned. it doesn't matter that that there is more possible names for her, one name will do for the plot. Also how does it "not make sense" i could agree i should have explained it better, but that doesnt mean its not understandable.

also you instantly messaged me as if you didnt give enough time for my comment to sink in to your brain. we talk in discussion, its better that way. I dont want my discussion page filling up. like i said "stick with one name". i'll switch the name annabel to lolita (since they are both the same person anyways and that it ownt affect the plot at all but it will benefit since the reader wont get confused.Haseo445 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

nope, you are correct, i dont know english very well. still...annebell isnt explained in the plot, making it assuem they are the same person.Haseo445 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Granpuff

See User:Marc_Kupper/sandbox#RfC_Granpuff - I'm in the middle of editing but I've asked an admin to look it over to see if I'm on the right path. You are free to edit/contribute. I'm also going to ask the admin if it's ok to move this to Granpuff's talk page while I work on it or if the sandbox is better. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ward3001. You have new messages at Marc Kupper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the heads up on AN/ANI. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Page title

BTW - there's something odd about your Talk page. Towards the end of the page load the Ward3001's Talk page header gets painted again and a 1/4th inch to the right and below the original header. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you are using {{override}} and that must be what breaks the page. There's a __ thing you can do to a page to change it's title. I'll look it up in a bit. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Try {{DISPLAYTITLE:Ward3001's Talk page}}. Note that it uses a colon and not the usual pipe as it's a MediaWiki thing. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I just tried it on my own talk page. Maybe Wikipedia needs to enable DISPLAYTITLE or something. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a FireFox thing. The override template uses both pixel and em to position the thing. I suspect it's the em that's different. The title itself is styled based on firstHeading which is

{ margin-bottom: .1em;

/* These two rules hack around bug 2013 (fix for more limited bug 11325).

When bug 2013 is fixed properly, they should be removed. */

line-height: 1.2em;

padding-bottom: 0; }

meaning it'll be a big PITA to make override work well for all browsers. I like the Ward3001's Talk page though. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

... for removing that weird vandalism from my user page. Tvoz/talk 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tammi Terrell

I don't know, I've seen that picture and another on a Marvin Gaye biography DVD and it didn't look like David to me. Marvin also wore glasses (he was short-sighted partially due to an accident committed by his brother when they were playing around their yard as kids). And whoever vandalized that page, get it straight, lol. I still say that's Marvin. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair. But I have to say that I've never actually seen any pictures of David & Tammi in that picture but if that's really Ruffin to you, can't change it. Oh well, I still think it's Marvin. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny

Thanks for my daily chuckle!! [9] Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann

There's absolutely no way you can sweep this under the rug without even a discussion. Olbermann clearly states the name on the email (Dan Cooper) as possibly perpetuating the fraud. Olbermann then names Dan Cooper as an architect of Fox News. I'd love to hear what other interpretations you're getting from this and how that in no way implies Olbermann felt Fox News had a hand in his twitter account. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Olbermann states: "it had somebody else‘s name on it, possibly whoever was perpetuating the fraud." He then says " The subject line read “Dan Cooper Media, local Tweet request.” " That's not my POV interpretation. It's obvious. Do you honestly believe Olbermann named Dan Cooper's role in Fox for any other reason than to invoke anger from his audience? Olbermann, of all people, mentioning Fox with no motives? I understand you're trying to bait me into to an argument to get me banned, but I've done nothing but present this information and politely ask for opinions on whether or not a criticism section could be built with the focus on Olbermann's attitude towards Fox. I haven't started with any hostility - I've only been met with it. Instead of allowing a single reply, you've forced your own illogical interpretation and prevented even a single comment. Nice. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann talk page

I don't have a problem with the statement about the New Yorker article, except I'd like to know that the article actually exists. Do you have a link or other info about date, issue number, page numbers, etc.? I Googled it and found nothing. I could easily state that there's a New Yorker article by Cronkite that praises Olbermann, but that doesn't mean it exists. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike :) I just left a note on talk. Believe me, I usually delete talk pages per "not a forum" but this didn't seem to rise to any level. Giving more thought, however, if there isn't an artilce, this should be removed per BLP to both KO and Cronkite. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

I'm sorry? I deleted that because it wasn't sourced. --Agusk7 (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC) The only sourced thing there was the quote, but it seemed out of place without the (unsourced) university information. If I left that quote alone it would have read "Portman would rather be smart than be a movie star" and that doesn't make sense. Watch what you want, I don't care. --Agusk7 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryder

I've responded in the appropriate spot regarding this latest WP:BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed commented on the article Talk: page; please do not keep posting in inappropriate locations, nor continue making inaccurate statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Winona / Block

If he does, I will report it. :-) -Duribald (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryder issues

In the interest of good will, I probably will remain silent on the issues hereafter and let the RfC play itself out, unless new issues arise. I do feel, however, that you owe the Wikipedia community (not just me) an apology for your behavior as an admin, just as I owe you an apology (and hereby offer it) for personalizing the discussion more than I should have. Regardless of the the Ryder and BLP issues, you clearly refused to discuss the issues until I demanded that you do so, but not before threatening blocks. I consider that entirely inappropriate as well as a conflict of interest (threatening a block on a disagreement on which you are involved). It would have taken very little effort for you to make a few comments on the talk page, then waited for others to respond, instead of immediately making threats to block. That's not just Wikipedia policy; it's common courtesy. I'm not even saying that you should not be an admin. I'm simply saying you stepped over the line, and admins should be held to at least a slightly higher standard. I read your RFA, and the issues that were raised there confirm the same concerns I have now about your behavior. An apology would be in order and a reasonable act of good faith. I think it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia, but I am not optimistic that you have the best interest of Wikipedia as your paramount goal. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins are charges with enforcing the policies, including WP:BLP - perhaps especially WP:BLP. When someone raises a BLP issue, it is incumbent upon those who object to raise the issue on the relevant article Talk: page. Please keep in mind that the onus is on those who wish to insert material into a BLP to provide justification for doing so, not on those who wish to keep it out. As the policy states:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

Part of enforcing BLP is using the admin tools to do so, when necessary; again, as the policy quite clearly states:

Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

In this case, I wasn't even editing the article myself.

Admins often get a lot of "flack" for enforcing BLP, and this is no different. As all the outside people who have commented on the RFC have noted, this is indeed a BLP issue, and your insertion of the material violated that. Finally, I don't really know how to take an "apology" that concludes with a bad faith insult about my goals. Suffice it to say, I'm glad this issue is behind us. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I don't really know how to take an "apology" that concludes with a bad faith insult about my goals.: My apology has nothing to do with your goals. Perhaps I should have placed it in a separate section.
Admins often get a lot of "flack" for enforcing BLP, and this is no different. As all the outside people who have commented on the RFC have noted, this is indeed a BLP issue, and your insertion of the material violated that.: You missed my point. Enforcement of BLP is fine, but regardless of BLP issues, I think you stepped over the lines of appropriate admin behavior and AGF by threatening blocks as your first action rather than discussing. Regardless of whether you removed what you considered BLP violations, it would have been much more reasonable behavior to explain your points on the talk page, and then if people continued to revert talk about blocks. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Look at the Ryder talk page where at least two more editors expressed disagreement with your threats of blocks. Some BLP issues are clear-cut, such as stating, without proper sourcing, that someone committed a crime or was involved in a sexual relationship. This issue was not nearly as sensitive. It may or may not have been a BLP violation (that's really irrelevant to my point here), but it did not involve potential libel issues. You gave almost nothing as explanation (very brief edit summaries) for your threats to block. That was entirely inappropriate. You owe Wikipedia editors an apology, but I doubt that your concern for Wikipedia is that strong. Ward3001 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please keep this discussion here, rather than in multiple places; it's bad enough that the "Russian-American" issue is itself being discussed in 3 different spots, often with near identical comments.
2. My first action wasn't to "threaten blocks"; my first action was to remove the material. My second action wasn't to threaten blocks either; rather, it was to point out that it was a WP:BLP issue, and invite Duribald to bring the issue up on Talk. It was only after you then reverted me again that I threatened to revert, protect, or block. And that seemed to have the desired effect; rather than reverting again, the two of you starting taking the issue somewhat seriously, and discussing it, though most of your discussion was simply attacking and insulting me, rather than justifying your insertion. I have the feeling, though, that in the future you won't be so hasty to revert someone who removes material from an article citing WP:BLP.
3. Since the reason given for removal was WP:BLP, it makes little sense to invoke WP:AGF to justify your revert. If WP:AGF and WP:BLP meant anything to you, you would have opened a discussion yourself, rather than reverting. BLP specifically says that the onus is on the editor inserting the material to justify their insertion.
4. You keep insisting that I "owe Wikipedia editors an apology". You have at least apologized, to an extent, for personalizing the discussion, though you have concluded each apology with another insult. You have yet to apologize, though, for reverting in material despite being told that it was removed for WP:BLP reasons, and for failing to assume good faith regarding the admin who did so. That is a far more relevant apology.
5. Since you have concluded your latest statement to me with another bad faith insult (i.e. "I doubt that your concern for Wikipedia is that strong"), I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep insisting that I "owe Wikipedia editors an apology". You have at least apologized, to an extent, for personalizing the discussion, though you have concluded each apology with another insult

You missed my point again. What you're perceiving as an insult (my insistence that you apologize and my expression of doubt that you will) is an entirely different issue. If you insist, I can create a special section on this page to offer an apology.

You have yet to apologize, though, for reverting in material despite being told that it was removed for WP:BLP reasons, and for failing to assume good faith regarding the admin who did so. That is a far more relevant apology.

I reverted when I disagreed with what you were interpreting as BLP reasons, and I only reverted once. You failed to provide any explanation of why it was a BLP issue until after I insisted that you do so. Am I to apologize for not reading your mind? Or am I to apology for not assuming you are infallible?

Since you have concluded your latest statement to me with another bad faith insult (i.e. "I doubt that your concern for Wikipedia is that strong"), I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

I don't either, because you can't seem to get the point (or don't want to get it). You owe Wikipedia editors an apology regardless of whether I make statements that you consider an insult. "He's insulting me, so I don't owe other editors an apology". Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the Wikipedia community. Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Ward3001, can you see point 1, in my previous comment? It says Please keep this discussion here, rather than in multiple places; it's bad enough that the "Russian-American" issue is itself being discussed in 3 different spots, often with near identical comments.
2. Actually, you "don't seem to get the point (or don't want to get it)." Admins do not need to apologize "to the Wikipedia community" for enforcing BLP; on the contary. Moreover, editors who treat the policy with disrespect, and fail to WP:AGF about the admins invoking it, are the ones who should "Apologize to the Wikipedia community."
3. Please review point 1, both in this comment, and the previous. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins do not need to apologize "to the Wikipedia community" for enforcing BLP: You missed the point again. For the third or fourth time, I did not say you needed to apologize for enforcing BLP. I did not say you needed to apologize for reverting what you considered a BLP violation. I did say you needed to apologize for threatening blocks with no explanation over a BLP issue that does not involve libel. That's the point that you seem to be struggling to understand. And I repeat: At least two other editors on the Ryder talk page disagree with your threats of blocks. Even BLP warning templates don't raise the issue of a block until it gets to level three. That didn't just happen randomly; it's considered unreasonable to threaten blocks immediately, unless you have some agenda other than discussing an issue. Do you understand the difference between reverting what you consider a BLP edit and threatening blocks for a BLP issue that does not involve libel? You are making it extremely difficult for me to see beyond your ego that comes from your admin tools, tools that the Wikipedia community that you have insulted gave you in good faith. I've seen admins explain much more sensitive BLP issues before threatening a block hundreds of times. It would be easy for me to just drop this issue, but I think your behavior as an admin has been damaging and needs to be addressed because I hope it deters you from that behavior again. That's why I'm going to some length to try to get you to understand my very simple points. Ward3001 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've quoted the relevant parts of BLP that advise admins they can take exactly those steps, and also pointed out that it was only after the second revert that I reminded you of WP:BLP's contents. And, much like you, I think your behavior as an editor was "damaging and need[ed] to be addressed because I hope it deters you from that behavior again". That's why I'm also "going to some length to try to get you to understand my very simple points." You are not a new editor; on the contrary, you've been editing for almost 3 years. Your revert was wrong, your multiple personal attacks were wrong, and your insults were wrong. You know what WP:BLP and WP:AGF are, since you invoke them, but you didn't seem to take them seriously. As for WP:NPA - well, you seemed to go out of your way to flout that. The first and third are policy, and the second an important guideline.

Now, again, we seem to be at an impasse. I've heard your points, and while I don't agree with them, I understand your viewpoint. You've heard my points, and while you clearly don't agree with them, I'm hoping you've understood them as well. I'm not demanding apologies from you, though, as I've said above, I think such apologies are owed. Rather than continuing this back and forth, I'm going to close the books on this incident, and move forward without prejudice towards you. I'm hoping you'll do the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

it was only after the second revert that I reminded you of WP:BLP's contents: Let me repeat: I did not make a second revert. And you could have easily made a simple explanation of what you considered a BLP violation on the talk page before threatening a block.
your behavior as an editor was "damaging and need[ed] to be addressed because I hope it deters you from that behavior again": That may or may not be true, but that does not mitigate the damage that your uncalled for threats of a block caused Wikipedia. If I had continued to revert, especially without discussion, you could have justifiably blocked me to for any damage. What is the recourse for editors for your abusive and unjustifiable threats to block? As I've said previously, at this point I'm not willing to say you shouldn't be an admin. But I think if you can't lower your ego just a little to make a simple apology so that it can improve Wikipedia, then maybe you should consider giving up the tools. (I doubt seriously that you have opened yourself up for recall.)
I understand your viewpoint: That doesn't appear to be the case.
I'm not demanding apologies from you, though, as I've said above, I think such apologies are owed.: If you mean apologize for personalizing the discussion, tell me where you want the apology and I'll place it there without reservation. If you mean apologize for not reading your mind or not assuming you are infallible over BLP issues, I'll be happy to address that issue in the appropriate forum; just tell me where.
I can proceed without prejudice toward you: I can proceed without prejudice toward you as a person or a Wikipedia editor. But you have not begun to convince me that you deserve the admin tools (and I suspect many other admins would agree who knew the details in this situation). And up to now in my years as a Wikipedia editor I have never had that opinion about an admin, even the ones with whom I disagreed. Ward3001 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, to begin with, you did indeed make a second revert; Duribald made the first revert, and you made the second revert. You were also quite well aware that this was a second revert. More importantly, you continue to claim that the only real issue here was not your reverting-in BLP-violating material, but rather my noting that BLP violations can be reverted, the article protected, or the violator blocked. You go further, and claim that, had I only posted on a relevant Talk: page what the issue was, it would have cleared up the whole problem. However, as is quite apparent from Talk:Winona_Ryder#Categories, Talk:Winona Ryder#Should Category:Russian-Americans be included?, and Category_talk:Russian-Americans#Category description, no amount of explanation would have sufficed for you and User:Duribald. Indeed, you continue to assert you are correct in this matter, despite the fact that every outside person who has commented on this has said that the material did indeed violate BLP, and that it did indeed have to be properly sourced to a reliable source describing the individuals as "Russian-American". Let me make this clear; the issues here were

1. You and Duribald reverting in BLP violating material, not me reminding you of my options as a BLP enforcing admin should you continue to do so.
2. You and Duribald failing to assume good faith about this BLP enforcement, while insisting that it was the person removing the BLP material who did not "assume good faith". The presumption in the case of BLP issues is always to leave the material out and, if desired, open a conversation on the relevant Talk: page. It is never to revert the material back in, and insist that the admin enforcing BLP has to come to the Talk: page before you stop reverting. And I remind you that I am not, and have never been, a content editor of the articles in question - though, if I were, I would still be would entirely within my rights as an admin to enforce BLP policy. Nevertheless, I am not, and this is not some content dispute in the guise of a BLP issue. Rather, my actions on the articles have only, and solely, been BLP related.
3. You and Duribald posting multiple egregious personal attacks about me, the BLP enforcing admin, and then you making various "apologies" that included further bad-faith insults. I have no doubt that anyone who reviews this interaction with come to the conclusion that User:Olve did, that they are "appalled by your ad hominem attacks and strongly advice that you take a wiki-break while thinking through your motivation for being on this project."[10]

Those are the three relevant issues. I hope I have been very clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• no amount of explanation would have sufficed for you and User:Duribald: Now you apparently believe you have mind-reading capabilities. And I'm having a serious problem understanding your "logic and common sense", something along the lines of "Ward3001 and Duribald won't accept my explanation, so I'll threaten to block without making an explanation."
  
• every outside person who has commented on this has said that the material did indeed violate BLP: And other editors also have commented that there should have been no threats of blocks, but you have conveniently forgotten to address that issue. Outside comments apparently apply to Duribald and me but not to you.
• Rather, my actions on the articles have only, and solely, been BLP related.: Your reverts were solely related to BLP issues. Your threats to block were designed to intimidate when intimidation was completely uncalled for.
  
• you making various "apologies" that included further bad-faith insults: Is the problem here that you can't understand the English words I have used to separate my apology from the other issues, or did I suddenly lose command of the English language? Your repeatedly connect my apology with "bad-faith insults". What is it about the words "They are separate issues" that you can't understand?
  
• strongly advice that you take a wiki-break while thinking through your motivation for being on this project: As should you, especially the part about examining your motivations when it comes to threatening to block.
  

I don't care to waste my time any more on this matter because you have no intention of acknowledging your inappropriate behavior as an admin. You have finally convinced we that you should, in fact, resign your position as admin. Sadly for Wikipedia, I know that you won't. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, exactly how does a vision teacher differ from a teacher of the blind and visually impaired? Having been to several of them and through the Intermediate School District and all that other stuff, all the professionals I've ever met use the two interchangeably. Azurefox (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

hey

how would you make an rfc on categories? the azbug/bellow/brooks thing is hilarious. he reverted me when i tried to make the definition broad enough to include them, but never bothered to remove (many) people from the category that weren't, as he insisted, simply, "born in Russia." i've seen the arbcom about him and brushed by him a few times before and the bedside manner leaves something to be desired. but this seems like a possible blp problem. i'm still a bit of a newbie, which board/section would a question like this be listed? 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, we're not the same person. I will find a free close-up photograph of Christina Aguilera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina2477 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with trying to prove something completely false. We're editing the same page because we know each other and all think the picture you chose is hideous.

The picture I have uploaded is free as it is a personal shot.

Where do we get consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina2477 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've yet to prove that the three of us are the same person. If it is so easy, by all means enter your "investigation." The personal shot I uploaded is FREE as it was a personal photograph from a concert. Saying I will find a headshot is not saying I will steal a copyright image, it is saying I will find a headshot of Christina within my PERSONAL collection. And if you continue to threaten me, I will report you.

Hey, "ItsZae"

Hi this is ItsZae. If you want proof that the images we (Kristina, Sef_Aguilera and myself) have uploaded, I have pictures the same night from the same show, and an actual picture with me and the artist myself. You say we found that image and are calling it free. PROVE it. The photograph is a cropped one from my very own collection. If you can find that very shot from that very night, from that very same angle, please show me. You sure are talking a lot of nonsense and making a lot of accusations for not backing them up. The picture was discussed by Christina's fans and it we do NOT like it so we were making a VALID change. You can actually view the discussion in question here:

[11]

Hey, "ItsZae"

Hi this is ItsZae. If you want proof that the images we (Kristina, Sef_Aguilera and myself) have uploaded, I have pictures the same night from the same show, and an actual picture with me and the artist herself. You say we found that image and are calling it free. PROVE it. The photograph is a cropped one from my very own collection. If you can find that very shot from that very night, from that very same angle, please show me. You sure are talking a lot of nonsense and making a lot of accusations for not backing them up. The picture was discussed by Christina's fans and it we do NOT like it so we were making a VALID change. You can actually view the discussion in question here:

http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=660407

I understand that you are looking out for wikipedia's best interest, however you should try a different approach when you are questioning somebody's work, aka asking for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZae (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

-Do what you absolutely have to do. Do the investigation. If you disagree with the photo because it's a full body one, I'm fine finding another one of my photos, cropping it to her face and uploading it as well. There is nothing wrong with us (her FANS) being disgruntled about you all having an unflattering photo of her up and replacing it with one that's totally compliant with Wikipedia's rules.--ItsZae (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Another one has just showed up. Checkuser time perhaps? Acalamari 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, based on new evidence since my above post, checkuser will be useless: the is a case of meatpuppetry, rather than sockpuppetry. The source of the problem seems to be from this forum, where someone decided they didn't like the current image. Since all the accounts most likely come from different parts of the world, checkuser won't work here. It would be abusive for me to hand out blocks. I'm trying to work out how to deal with this one, though currently there's a discussion on the talk page, which is a start. Thanks. Acalamari 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be votestacking, and it wouldn't really be consensus. I can get a neutral admin to intervene too, and one who is much better with images than I am: I'll contact him in a minute. With 3RR, this is a borderline case, and I probably would refrain from reverting beyond the limit. Acalamari 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scary Movie/Not Another Teen Movie/Flautist

Please explain your reverts. 87.69.131.103 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney

Hi, you took down my section on the trademarks of a Lennon/McCartney lyric as a POV. What I said was that it was common practice for them to use the title of their song as the first line of the song. If you look at the famous songs I cited, you will see that this is actually the case and not a point of view. Equally they used the words you, me and I for around half of their lyrics in the first line. Again if you check through their lyrics, you will see this is the case and not a point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldgreen (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kill Bill, Parody

Would you, please, explain your decision to remove my contribution to the parody section of the Kill Bill article. I am new to the Wikipedia forum, and no input from other - and, often, more experienced - editors goes unappreciated. Thanks. Mcwebeditor (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I plan to re-post that content, ONCE I have located an appropriate source. Mcwebeditor (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. I've taken one more shot at posting that content to the Kill Bill article. Thanks, again, for your input. Mcwebeditor (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't smack me...

... I know what I'm talking about. Garrison Keillor grew up AMONG Lutherans, but was never himself a Lutheran; he is on record as having grown up Sanctified Brethren. Check your research, and please don't threaten me. Deleting my correction without checking your resources was sloppy and snotty, and I don't appreciate it. My edit was absolutely valid.

Midwestern Girl (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

re: User talk:Montana's Defender

Sorry Ward, but you are incorrect. Users are perfectly free to remove warnings or anything else from their own talk page. If you keep edit warring on this, I'm afraid you might find yourself being blocked, which would be a silly thing to have happen over such a minor affair. I've been monitoring this user's talk page for some time and I'm well aware there are some problems, but that doesn't change the fact that user and user talk pages are the exceptions to WP:OWN. Any warnings are still in the page history anyway, so it's not like they've actually been deleted or anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

• I suppose the up side of not archiving is that I can pick up right where we left off. I think perhaps a user conduct WP:RFC is in order,as a last resort to try and get this user to actually discuss things with other editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to go for a block, but to give one more chance at actual communication. Your remarks are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Montana's Defender Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I can't say it surprised me that this ultimately ended with a block, but I didn't expect it to happen for that reason. Anyway, if they are unblocked and this same behavior comes back, obviously it can go straight to WP:ANI. I think the best approach might be for the three of us to kind of back away from this if there is an unblock, and let Montana see that this isn't just us three "ganging" up on them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Pepper jingle

Blame the "peer review" js. 8-)--Jeremy (blah blah) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies

I assumed you were editing Tim Wise's bio out of ethnic or political interest. For that I am sorry. --Murrayhuntington (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Test edit

Hi! No, it wasn't a test edit. Infobox Settlement worked for me fine when editing Foca (c at the middle has an accent), and just copy&pasted the relevant section (5 rows) into the same infobox of Medjugorje, but it gives me error messages. I don't know why...Mazarin07 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kolaid page

Yes, I know that it was a vandal, and s/he tried to redirect it to urine. But "Kolaid" is a plausible search term for "Kool-Aid", seeing as someone could just accidently leave out an "o". There would be no point in deleting it, if the redirect could be of use. Regards, ƒingers^on_Roids 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I didn't redirect it to urine. I redirected it to "Kool-Aid". I hope that makes more sense? Please self-revert if you understand my actions, I don't like going too close to the WP:3RR when we are both clearly editing in good faith. ƒingers^on_Roids 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit - Sorry, you didn't revert it back to the speedy tag. My mistake for assuming so :].ƒingers^on_Roids 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your very good work in keeping articles free of vandalism, POV-pushing, wrong and/or unsourced information, and for making sure that said articles are presentable. Please keep it up, and thank you for what you do. Acalamari 02:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) You deserve it. Acalamari 02:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, thanks for this. I blocked the IP vandalizing Ashley Roberts and left a note on their talk page but forgot to warn the other user. Thanks for picking up on that. Acalamari 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

re: User-08burgelaura

My comment was that perhaps the next time she is at recess, she can run down and take a quick photo for us. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin McGrew's blog

Thanks for the feedback. I respect Dr. McGrew's position as an academic psychologist, but I would not support the addition of a blog even though it is maintained by a psychology professor (I have reviewed it). He seems to post relevant news items to the blog. I have posted what I believe to be a more appropriate link for McGrew's work and for the intelligence article in general. I believe that I have taken a middle ground position, and would like to let you know that I will NOT remove the link for the blog if you are successful in receiving a consensus. However, I will support your position if there is a precedent for posting blogs that offer news updates on other Wikipedia pages or Wikipedia specifically advocates for the inclusion of links like you are proposing in some set of guidelines. psychstud (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Format

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test#Other_pages_with_controversial_images

Ward3001, on this page I intended my comment to be a response to Martinevans123, hence why I placed it where I did. However, as it looks it, it seems like I am answering you. Do you not want your comment separated from Martinevans123's by a response? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have implemented it. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks

But why the File:Jenny Humphrey.jpg is still in Commons? It should be removed if it's "illegal". Uuuuuno (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Uma Thurman

Hey Ward - if you like one of these Uma Thurmans better than the original one I placed, feel free to swap it out.

• 
• 
• 

-->David Shankbone 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Ward3001. You've been mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your editing and threat

Hello Ward3001 I know that in demand celebrity bios are constantly defaced. If you check my history you might see the battles I endured within the Wiki organization trying to enforce the guidelines for it. The item I posted was relevant due to the graphic and NEWS reports about the issue. Agreed, I didn´t reference them at the time. But to threat me to be banned is a long call. I think this should be included. Reliable sources:

Huffington Post TMZ (photos and videos) and most recently Ciak and ANSA (Italian News Agencies)

If you think this is not relevant for a public figure we might discuss it.

Worldnewsjunkie (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon 88.109.57.45

You have posted a note on Mentifisto's talk page about the above anonymous editor's vandalism of their own talk page. I know that Mentifisto has now followed up your comment, but I thought the following might also be worth mentioning. You say "I realize users can edit their own talk page even when blocked, but I'm not sure if that applies to adding junk to a IP talk page". The answer is simple: a user talk page, like any other Wikipedia page, is the property of the Wikimedia foundation, not of the user. It is placed at the disposal of an individual user for use in connection with work to improve Wikipedia, not for any purpose they choose. It is usual to allow considerably more leeway to users on their own user pages than elsewhere, but out and out vandalism, as in this case, is no more acceptable on a user talk page than anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious revert at Kill Bill

Hey, could you explain this edit to me? --Conti|✉ 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the "main article" template as well, since those aren't usually used in the middle of a section. It's pretty pointless either way, considering that the very same article is linked about a dozen words after the template. --Conti|✉ 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection tag on each of the Desperate Housewives articles

Could you please put a two-week protection tag on articles related to Desperate Housewives so that I'll know I won't edit or comment on those articles since those are the articles where my problems tend to occur? Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

jessica biel

please don't try to censor talk pages wikipedia is not a place for censorship if what i am saying is a rant that whole section is a rant thank you much--Pleasenowz (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam

I see that you agree with me on his editing, eh? Lol. I was shocked when I went back and saw his edits on people's talk pages. I really hope he takes your advices, and cools down. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed you

Just confirming, and I'm deleting your message.Faustian (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil

I would request you attempt civility. Many thanks.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours you have become increasingly hostile and belittling towards Doc and other people. I can assure you if you continue down this road of increasing incivility you will likely find your arguments cut short. While I personally am far to involved to make any sort of administrative decision towards you I assure you that your commentary is creeping ever closer to the point where some admin will block you. Chillum 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please provide me with a way to talk with you outside of Wikipedia. I would like to call you on the telephone. Somebodywhoknowssomething (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Provide me with an email address where I can immediately send you my phone number. You may call me.

My phone number is posted here.

http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=328177

After you call me, I will erase the phone number.

I'm going to give you some important information.

I can identify a sockpuppet for you. Once you discuss the evidence with me, you will understand. Somebodywhoknowssomething (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what Ward could do about that... Why not just file an WP:SPI ? –xeno^talk 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are talking to somebody else who is a sockpuppet. Would you like to know who the person is? I am not going to ask you for any personal information. I have no interest in WP:SPI, but I think it would be helpful to you to know what's up. Somebodywhoknowssomething (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Iff the puppetry is abusive, yes. You can email me , xenowiki (at) gmail (dot) com. –xeno^talk 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno. Thank you. I offered the information first to Ward, I'll let Ward3001 call me right now. SEe that forum biography page for my phone number. Somebodywhoknowssomething (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do email Xeno as he indicated. He is trustworthy and in a position to deal with any problems. If you can't communicate directly with a Wikipedia admin such as Xeno, then please stop messaging me here and move on to something else. And you'll never get a phone call from me under any circumstances. Please email Xeno. If he thinks I need to be involved I feel confident he will let me know. I will give Xeno my email address if necessary. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will email Xeno. I am responding to message on your User page. I am one of the "missing Wikipedians" and I want to talk to you about the problem. You seem like somebody who is serious about this problem, yet has stuck with it. Somebodywhoknowssomething (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If Xeno lets me know you emailed him, fine. Otherwise, please don't message me here again. Ward3001 (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A diff

Here it indicated that you are a member of the APA [[12]] We should really continue the discuss of who does what out in the real world on the personal talk pages rather than on the discussion pages. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test

Hi. re "Evidence of harm beyond APA ethics has been presented at various points in this discussion over the past few weeks. " - I'm interested in that, but since I wasn't around for those discussions, it seems like it would be too hard for me to find in a reasonable amount of time. Any more clues about where to look? But if it's too much of a hassle, don't worry about it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach_test#An_informal_survey_for_the_inclusion_of_the_10_inkblots

I noticed in your vote that you mentioned evidence of harm that has been presented. Could you please point it out to me? Chillum 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)