Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 22 December 2007

User:SnakeChess5

Re: I apologise, I did not realize what I was doing was vandalism. I was doing some research on Canada Geese and was looking at several sources for information (including Misplaced Pages) and notice that they all said different things, so I decided to average them out and edit the Misplaced Pages article to such an extent. I will try to be more careful.

Substace Co-op

Hi

I created a page for Substace Co-op, as this is the research coop I work for. I planned to put details of the publications onto wikpedia, as these are in the public domain (http://www.substance.coop/index.php/Section10.html) but it seems that the page I created has been deleted, and linked to yourself.

Is there a reason for this?

Many thanks

Steven Flower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevieflow (talk • contribs)

Henry Ford

Ford was antisemitic. For people who don't read the whole entry, they should be able to know that Ford is antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlippman (talk • contribs)

Cleanup tags

Hi, best not to "subst" things like "unreferenced" etc. For more details see WP:SUBST. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57 27 February 2007 (GMT).

Probably not, I'm just clearing up the stubborn undated maintenance tags, which includes "substed", botched parameters and protected pages (and idiosyncratic tmplate redirects, and ...). I only do it occasionally because it's a bit of a hassle to boil it down to the stubborn ones. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 27 February 2007 (GMT).

Image copyright problem with Image:Aoe4and5.jpg

I added the "fair use - art" license to the image in question...please let me know if this is appropriate. --Cataphract_40

I believe Gauche & Timeonmyside1 are sockpuppets used by Astanhope

Evidently, you've been keeping an eye on this guy (who seems to be fond of vandalism, uncommented revisions, etc) - you might want to take a gander at IPs for each of these user accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangible (talk • contribs)

Re:Sassanid Empire

If I was ever in any way in the wrong, then please do not hesitate to revert my reversion. I apologise for my mistake. It simply appeared to me that you had pulled out a great deal of text. I did not read the edit summary, but rather rolled-back immediately. I will remember to not do this again. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident -- (dated 23:42, 16 June 2007 UTC)

Rebelyell1916

Apologies. I have removed commercial content from that page, and left the article on its own. I hope this suffices.

Regards Rebelyell1916

List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois

Hey guy, I saw that you helped out originally with List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois. I just wanted to let you know that I have converted it into a table, and Ivo and myself are going to start working on it towards FL. So any assistance with the page or the other articles would be great. Or heck, just even morale support would be great!--Kranar drogin 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great! I'll be in Springfield in a few weeks, so if you've got maybe one place that needs a photograph, I might give it a shot. Keep the weather in mind, though. Rklawton 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Boy, one place huh. I will have to think about that one.--Kranar drogin 04:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my one place would have to be the Illinois Executive Mansion. I am going to make a quick map for you, well, trying to anyways. I saw someone do this, so give me a few here.--Kranar drogin 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was much more than a few! Here is the map I created Here. I know you said one, but you never know if you would have time for the others!--Kranar drogin 10:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got Friday morning available. The executive mansion won't be open then, and I suspect an interior shot would be most useful for the article. Any ideas for a Friday morning shoot? Rklawton 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would just say get what you can get that is close to where you are. If it happens to be a place side by side...well =). Just take the map, all the addresses are on it, so its your choice.--Kranar drogin 21:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy, did you have any luck on your adventures in Springfield?--Kranar drogin 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just returned. I was able to shoot a few locations as the weather was crisp and the trees colorful. The images will take another hour to download and a few more to process. Look for changes to my gallery page tomorrow. Rklawton 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For your information

A tag has been placed on Image:Croydon facelift.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on ] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Revolus 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I deleted it. Rklawton 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting question for you.

I want to make my "Pages I watch" list on my userpage into a collapsible secion. Do you know how I do that? I've looked and experimented, and can not seem to figure it out. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue, sorry. Rklawton 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I swiped some code from your userpage, and accomplished nearly the same thing simply by "column-izing" my lists. My userpage is much shorter now. Thanks for the inadvertent help! :) K. Scott Bailey 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rklawton 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Small world!

One of the IPs that vandalised your page on Commons just turned up on en books (with this) and is blocked by you here. I'm inclined to think this is not a school given this? Any thoughts & no urgency at all, cheers --Herby 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a general thought that it might be neat if we could see edit histories across projects for IP addresses. It would provide us with more context when evaluating current problems. Rklawton 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally check Luxo's tool out for an ip (or user - good for cross wiki spammers!) when I have time, hence the thought that it is not a school that we are dealing with, regards --Herby 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that tool. Can you point me to it? Thanks! Rklawton 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - it is in the link above (for the ip) and what made me suspicious about that IP. This is the general one. It does not always work and isn't that fast but it is good for reviewing when there's time (& getting the domain is a bonus!) , regards --Herby 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tombstone, Arizona

Hey Robert, wondering, could I get a little help on the article above, User:Nyttend is up at the edge of 3RR changing units to list metric first in a U.S. article, flatly in the face of WP:UNITS. Perhaps you could help explain this to this user. IvoShandor 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, maybe he/she read my note on the talk page, it makes great sense. :) IvoShandor 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the thread now? It should either be on the project's page or the bot's page. I'm assuming the project complies with UNITS, so perhaps this is just a matter of fixing the bot. UNITS is pretty clear, though I'd be in favor of changing it formally. English measures suck; even the English don't use them. Rklawton 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, it is what the U.S. recognizes and uses, the talk page of Tombstone, but a bot operator is already on the task. I just wanted the reverting to stop, it did. IvoShandor 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick question...

Can an article about an album (i.e., Make me rich) be tagged db-band? It does not quite seem to fit, but it's the closest I can find. This article is rubbish. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So... I am guessing that the answer was, in one form or another, yes. Anyway, the article is gone. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Save conflicted... Yes, I've deleted/reverted all his stuff on conflict of interest/self-promotion/repost grounds. The guy's got a history and at least two accounts. Good catch. Rklawton 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what it was that caught my eye when it came up on recent changes. Perhaps his name was mentioned in the edit summary, and it matched the username, which is always a red flag. At any rate, I'm glad I saw it, and glad it is gone. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Penn State

You caught it a little before me--I've commented at AN/I and am speaking to the appropriate PR people there tomorrrow--I've done this before, with advice and instruction from Durova, using her WP:BFAQ. DGG (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, I've made requests on both the admin page discussion and in the Prasenjit Mitra discussion for *constructive* suggestions on how to help my students make more productive contributions. I thought I'd repeat it here in case you weren't watching. I'm sorry if my students' first drafts surprised you and were misinterpreted, or if my assignment was in your opinion suboptimal, but please try to keep things respectful and helpful.Cmhoadley 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you didn't assign work for your students that wasn't blazingly self-promotional. How's that? Rklawton 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on the conduct of admin User:Mikkalai

A brief summary:

This user came to my attention when I was doing some RfA reviews and votes. He was blanketing every RfA with an oppose vote and some version of a "we don't need a professional police force" commentary. At first, this simply struck me as misguided, and a bit disrespectful (per WP:AGF), especially coming from an administrator. Upon reviewing his contribs further, I realized that this was a more blatant violation of both WP:AGF and WP:POINT, as he was simply taking out his frustrations about a 48hr block he received from another admin for edit warring on the RfA candidates up for consideration. I approached this editor, both in the main RfA space, as well as on his talk page. Several other editors did so as well. He has continued his policy violations by WP:NPA|attacking]] us as "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." He has also deleted multiple good-faith contribs from his talk page, simply because he didn't like what we had to say. While I know that at least THAT part is within his rights, I don't know if I've ever seen an admin demonstrate less good will and good faith in my previous months on the project. I have included what I feel are the most pertinent links. What I'd like to see is an "outside review" of sorts, of how this admin has conducted himself, both in the initial RfA canvassed opposes, and the subsequent discussions. Thanks in advance for any time you can put into this. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(The above are various diffs that demonstrate his extreme incivility in both posted content and edit summaries.)

(This is the 48hr block that apparently started his inappropriate RfA campaign against an admin "professional police force.")

(I placed a discussion he deleted from his talk page here for preservation.)

(His accusations of bullying are all the way at the bottom of this page.)

Other than similar RfA votes and comments, is there a pattern to his votes? For example, is he opposing only RfA nominations which his detractors have supported? You may have a case even without this information, but a bit more research might make this airtight. Suggestions:

1. See if you can find an additional pattern
2. Create a complete list of RfA diffs from this admin over the last week (both yes, no, and neutrals)
3. Summarize your concerns (basically around WP:POINT).
4. Post this on AN/I.

Remember, RfA voting is an editing issue, so leave the bureaucrats out of it for now. Rklawton 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD? I'm confused. His canvassing with opposes was at RfA, and was simply blanketing 10+ RfAs with the same basic message about WP not needing a "professional police force." His utter incivility came afterwards, when multiple editors approached him with concerns regarding these RfA votes. K. Scott Bailey 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy such confrontations, but this seems to be a blatantly abusive admin, especially in edit summaries accusing people who disagree with him of being "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." I guess my basic question was, given the above evidence, is it worth pursuing? K. Scott Bailey 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a pattern where he is basically voting no for every RfA his detractors favor, then yes, I would think it's worth posting on AN/I. Rklawton 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I don't think I'm making clear: he's voting "oppose" on EVERY RfA, in my opinion simply because he's angry about being blocked 48 for edit-warring. That's how he has attracted "detractors." He simply opposes every RfA he votes on, and leaves a cursory message about "professional police" or some variant thereof. His detractors have come as a result of his unprofessional behavior, first on RfA in blanketing oppose votes on every RfA, then on his talk page for deleting good-faith questions, as well as leaving personal attacks about "trolling" and "bullying" in the edit summaries. K. Scott Bailey 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. If you like, then just bring it up as a WP:POINT issue on AN/I. Keep it short and simple, provide the full list of vote diffs (so others can quickly grasp the scale), and focus only on the votes. You may want to suggest that these votes be removed and that the admin be warned (by someone new). Rklawton 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together. I'm not very good at formatting diffs and the like, but I think I may do this. He's being VERY pointy, and uncivil as well. K. Scott Bailey 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, FWIW

FYI (since you're a significant contributor to the article), I've asked members of WikiProject Law to comment following . Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The early news reports claim no warrant. The later reports make no such claim. That's also significant. Rklawton 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey

Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Abraham Lincoln?

Both the talk page and the article are being monopolized by pettifoggery from User:Gwen_Gale. She is opposing uncontroversial portions of the article based on minutae, and refusing to recognize any sources provided as reliable. I've disengaged from her now. I'd appreciate another set of eyes on the article, and this potentially problematic user. (As background info, you should know that she has claimed she could reliably source that Lincoln was "genocidal", so she's got some "different" ideas on Lincoln.) K. Scott Bailey 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

She's at it again. She's now accusing me of the following:

...you are edit warring without end and continue to engage in low level personal attacks. Please stop edit warring. Please stop engaging in personal attacks. Please stop mis-applying Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop using belligerent and misleading edit summaries and please stop forum shopping. per User:Gwen_Gale at the talk page for Abraham Lincoln.

I'm not sure she understands that accusing people of violating various and sundry wikipolicies without merit is ITSELF a violation of wikipolicy. Could you look into this further, when you get the chance? Regards, K. Scott Bailey 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dawgs05190

Re: Need your help
If you think it's appropriate, please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. It's faster, probably, to report this sort of abuse through WP:AIV. Rklawton 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the first time I asked an admin help for blocking. I saw you blocked User talk:Ipod32196 and asked. Because I thought User:Dawgs05190's edits were so terrible. I'll be more patient with users like him/her. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind helping. However, if I'd stepped out for the day, your request would have received a delayed response, and that would have been unfortunate. That's why I recommended WP:AIV. Please do not be more patient with these sorts of vandals. They should be blocked quickly and without drama. Rklawton 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Stupid of me! I was a little bit sleepy and misread the word 'through' as 'though'. Ha ha ha. Well thanks and good night. (It's early in the morning where I am) Oda Mari (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

よい夢 Rklawton 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was a bad dream. (about my hasty and silly English reading and then my upsetting and embarrassment, of course) Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merck vandal

Just wondering if you think it might be useful to put a range block on the IPs used by the person who keeps vandalizing the Merck article. Do you think the collateral damage on blocking 201.141.128/17 would be minimal? --Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The collateral damage would cover just over 65,000 IP addresses. They're Mexican, so it might not have much of an impact on English Misplaced Pages users, but I'd feel more comfortable if we had a way of checking out the activity of these 65,000 addresses first. I don't mind 6 month blocks on the IPs he uses because I can check them for activity first. Interestingly enough, I know who is responsible for these edits. You might try contacting his internet service provider about this. How's your Spanish? Rklawton 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's a lot of addresses, but as far as I can tell there have been no other edits from any IP used by the vandal. Your suggestion of contacting the ISP is probably a much better way to go, though. I know very little Spanish, so I would have to enlist the help of someone else. Can you elaborate on who is responsible for these edits? --Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll forward that on to whoever would coordinate with the ISP. The ISP, however, will probably only need IP addresses and GMT edit times. From this they can trace the account holder themselves. I doubt they would want to take action on my word alone. Rklawton 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. I'll let you know if I decide to take any action (not sure it's worth the effort for a generally low level of vandalism). --Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my conduct at the talk page of Abraham Lincoln?

I am reposting this from the note I left at Tim Vickers talk page, as I just noticed he won't be around until Wednesday.

I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by User:Gwen_Gale. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that once again your use of a certain word has raised hackles and distracted an editor from your most relevant points. I hope you keep this in mind. Being right and being effective are not the same thing.

Other than that, Gwen obviously stands alone. Learn to trust your judgment – and Misplaced Pages's other editors. This trust would manifest itself by clearly and succinctly outlining your arguments and then leaving it to other editors (not the one in question) to agree. They will. By responding to every comment, you increase the length of the thread and decrease the probability that an experienced editor will want to join in.

Why? Reading long threads requires a significant investment in time and energy, and the surety of a return comment from you guarantees an additional drain. If you keep your arguments short and to the point, more people will have a chance to join in and your opponent will find him or herself overwhelmed. Unless you're wrong, of course. In that case, they probably won't – but then – you won't have wasted much of your time on the matter. It's a win for you either way. Rklawton 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, aside from my use of the word pettifoggery (which I will remove from my wikivocabulary, per your advice here) do you see any merit in her various and sundry claims of policy violations on my part? To be honest, dealing with her (as well as the problem at RfA) has sapped some of my passion for the project, and I've been considering taking some time off from WP. This might be the best thing for all involved. I'd be letting other editors deal with her, and I could come back renewed.

As a side question, I have created an above-board second-account, User:MrWhich. What procedures do I need to go through in order to make certain that I don't break any policies by having that account? I was considering going dormant on this account (which has my real name), and letting that one gradually become my main one. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks again for all your help. K. Scott Bailey 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no merit to her claims. Many editors have taken a vacation; I recommend the beach. There are several valid approaches to creating a new account. If you wish to switch ID's, simply abandon your old account and start a new one. You need not make a connection between them, and so long as you've given up the one entirely (an indef block is not a bad way to go, either). You always have the right to vanish. Rklawton 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't necessarily wanting to completely abandon this account. Isn't it fairly common for one person to maintain two above-board accounts, as long as they're not vote-stacking at AfDs and stuff like that? Also, is it necessary to post the userbox identifying Mr Which with the KSB account? Sorry for all the questions. I guess even after 8-9 months, I'm still a bit of a nooby. K. Scott Bailey 06:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK for details. But yes, I would cross-link both accounts if you wish to take that approach. Rklawton 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind talking to User:Gwen_Gale about both her accusations against good faith in calling my removal of external links at Abraham Lincoln per WP:EL "edit warring", as well as her continual insistence on reinserting them after several editors have removed them based on the same reasoning. I've asked her to stop accusing me of "edit warring" in her summaries, but she refuses to do so. I will remove them one last time, but I need someone other than myself to contact her regarding both her accusations and her reinsertion of what basically amounts to a link farm. K. Scott Bailey 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a short note on her talk page. I'll follow up in a few days. Rklawton 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. K. Scott Bailey 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your getting to it so quickly. One question I had was whether or not it will always take such an in-depth, source-by-source review to remove external links per WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. K. Scott Bailey 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NufcCiaran

Hi! It's me again. I've been sighing since then. I'm not in hurry. so I ask you the block again. To tell the truth, it's easier. I'm not sure if I could post the report appropriately. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AL ELs

So far I agree with your takes on each one you've looked at, thanks for doing this. Gwen Gale 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been too busy to go over the whole list, so keep the ball rolling if you like. Rklawton 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with GG's opinion on your views thus far. I still think that the "Open Directory" links at the top serve much the same purpose as some of the links in the list, but if it takes a link-by-link look to pare down the current linkfarm, I'm all for it. K. Scott Bailey 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin armours

I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• do you have a photo of baidana? (it's a mail from quite big flat rings, weared over a mail from small rings) unfortunately the photo from ru:байдана is gonna be deleted :-(
• do you have photos of mirror armour and plated mail ?

I'll have to check. It'll be a day or two before I can get to it. On what grounds will the original image be deleted? Rklawton (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

as FU violation, as a free photo could be made (it's gonna be deleted by the end of this week) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.164 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the image which is gonna be deleted http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baydana_of_Boris_Godunov.jpg

another picture http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baidan_Rings_%28close-view%29.jpg that could be deleted in future too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.164 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• did you find anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.251.30 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look yet. Rklawton (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK! I'll wait :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.21 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• how about photos now? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.55.219 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Bibliography

This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president; The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely, Vanais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanais (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please bring this up on the article's talk page so all can participate. Rklawton (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Birding image deleted from Orchid, Florida and Orchid Island, Florida

See User:EvanS/Photos, who uploaded the image. Its caption is Birding in Indian River County. Located in the Indian River off the northwest coast of Orchid Island is the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. While access is limited, birders do watch from nearby either on the water or on Orchid Island. EvanS put the image in the Town of Orchid article and I put it in the Orchid Island article when I created. it clariosophic (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)corrected typo clariosophic (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The image shows us nothing of Orchid, Florida, nor does it show us birding. The image depicts two people with binoculars. It is a singularly uninteresting photo that certainly does not belong in a city article. Sorry. Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Treadwheel

I've responded to your question on the talk page, hope it is of use to you. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for looking after my page during my absenceBoatman666 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Rklawton (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I would have expected more from an admin. How you could possibly call that link a personal website or a blog is beyond me. With all due respect, I think you should retract your assertion. Either way, I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um - because it's his personal website. Check out his bio. Check out the site. It's a personal website. This article calls for peer-review material. Rklawton 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rockwell is a public figure and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, lewrockwell.com is a high traffic economics and libertarian web site with its own columnists and lots of features and archives (along with a separate blog feature which isn't an open blog). As for peer review, much of the material on the site is peer reviewed but that's irrelevent, WP policy has little to say about peer review and nothing to say about the need for peer reviewed external links for Abraham Lincoln. Lastly, the disputed link points to material by published authors and academics. As I said on the talk page I'll go with consensus which has its sway, after all, but please don't think for a moment it has anything to do with the article being NPOV (it is not) or in comformance with Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you for your time and I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Dear Rklawton, I think you may have confused incidents when changing this sentence: "This, and other reports of members of the US military's Criminal Investigation Command working with, or posing as, members of Canadian law enforcement has raised questions about Canadian sovereignty" The reference supporting the statement is not about the incident in BC, and I think it supports correctly the assertion made. Pete.Hurd 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This belongs on the article's talk page. Rklawton 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, more there, but an FYI here. Pete.Hurd 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links I added?

Rklawton, I appreciate you showing me the Wiki policy on external links, but wouldn't you agree that some some sites (such as gruntsmilitary.com) offer high-quality image scans of these medals which people might actually be searching for? And, if they are searching for nicer images, they honestly won't find much on Wiki's current collection. Plus, I can't exactly grab the images from gruntsmilitary.com because most aren't in the public domain (and thus we can't paste them onto their wiki pages). Don't you think that this adds content and is worthy of an external link?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militarybuff (talk • contribs)

No. It's spam. Rklawton 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more of a fine line here between 'spam' and providing a link to a page with a lot of good information, which also offers links to buy the medals in question. To my mind, the gruntsmilitary.com site seems to offer a great resource of information with a very unobtrusive commercial side to it (in fact, it took me a little while on the site to work out what the concern was with it). PalawanOz 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already got good images, so we don't need to appear as a link farm for a commercial website. If we need better images, then the article's talk pages should be tagged with a photo request. Oddly enough, they aren't. So in short, the spam links are fulfilling a "need" that doesn't exist. Rklawton 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kremlin armours again

it's me again is any hope for Kremlin armours photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.131 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that easy. I need to go through my archive, and then I need to identify each piece from the armory's catalogue. It'll happen, but I've also got work-related tasks, too. I'm self-employed, so as you might imagine, my "boss" is a real pain. Rklawton 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded a detail image of Boris' armor to replace the copyvio scanned from the Armoury's guide book. It illustrates the flat rings in contrast to the more typical style from his barmitsa. Rklawton (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GREAT THANKS! :-) don't you have a photo of whole baidana? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.187 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Baidana is a style of ring, and I only have detailed images of these rings. I have nice images of a plate/mail joint and a lamellar/mail joint if that is of interest. Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK! Thanks again! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.244.117 (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Civility

Civility is great. I'm glad you added the war correspondent, but a month of making the request is an awful long time for something that is properly and obviously sourced. Matt Sanchez 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. So you're giving me heat for doing something you've wanted done? Rklawton 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Write

No, I'm not giving you heat. I'm actually pointing out that it's great you were able to effectuate a change that was dragging along.

I need for people to point out what the "personal attacks" are, because there's obviously a communications' issue.

I've revised the Adult Entertainment category. How do I get editors to vote on this proposal? What is the usual process for making this change?

The revision is on the site, how do I proceed?Matt Sanchez 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You could start by providing a link. There is no Category:Adult Entertainment Rklawton 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, we could re-write:

I got the links to the article and rewrote several parts. Much better re-write. Please comment and see if we can get editors to approve it.

In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.

During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild, Jawbreaker and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi.

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-Write 2.0

Here's the re-write with links:

Re-write for Adult Career 2.0

So, we could re-write:

In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.

During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild, Jawbreaker and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi.

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Yes, please put these types of messages on the aritcle's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fountain Square, Cincinnati

Why did you sent me that message I didn't readd any corporate logo it was already there,I just moved it. Anyway its not a coporate logo its a free non-profit organization and its supposed to be an article about the square so shouldn't we have their logo on the page? Lastly other pages have logos for their organization,and or landmark why should fountain square be any different? As I said before I'm confused. Meckstroth.jm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meckstroth.jm (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits show you re-adding the logos - logos that are not part of the non-profit organization to which you refer. Do not re-add these logos to the article. Rklawton 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln/Lindley

Do you mean the Lindley info should just be not included? I have no view, except that Lindley is certainly not notable enough for his own article independently of Lincoln, his article was all about Lincoln. But we could just make Lindley a redirect, though thhen maybe he should get a one-sentence mention in the rare event people come from there.Merkinsmum 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial compared to the main article, and it's already included in the burial article. I agree that the biography isn't sufficiently notable. I think it should be redirected to the burial article. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Aah I just spotted the burial article, didn't see it before you mentioned it. Ok I will redirect Lindley to there but without altering the info there.Merkinsmum 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I should have provided a link. Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just into redirects at the moment- working through clicking 'randam article' and redirecting non-notable ones. But if you asked on the Lincoln page or asked someone who works on the buurial page, I'm sure they'd sort it.:)Merkinsmum 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing. Rklawton (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star recipients notability

I note that you responded on Talk:Thomas T Walker about his notability as a Silver Star recipient. From time to time, there have been afd discussion on military personnel based on either rank/honors (BGen/NC). Some arguments centered on how many people there would be that would meet the criteria — I don't think numbers mean anything. At this point, I'm not inclined to support blanket notability on the basis of a Silver Star award. See Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. Checking just the "A"s — all have notability apart from the Silver Star. In the case of Bruce Godfrey Brackett, his additioanal notability comes from having a USN ship named in his honor. In the case of Thomas T Walker, there are a number of issues, in addition to notability of a Silver Star recipient — WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT. I'm interested in your further thoughts. — ERcheck (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given it much thought. I'll sleep on it, though. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to balance the fact that tens of thousands of these awards have been made against the fact that every new Silver Star recipient will receive enough press to satisify WP:V and WP:RS. Rklawton (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour at Talk:Abraham Lincoln

This edit is unacceptable. I have been neither incivil nor disruptive and have not even edited the article lately. Moreover, the only reason I showed up again is that other editors had expressed, both on my talk page and on the article talk page, concerns about the lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln. Under the circumstances, if you wanted me to leave the discussion you could have sent me a polite email asking me to step back for awhile and I would have done, happily. I had already agreed on the talk page that waiting 90 days or so was a helpful notion and was only replying to straggling comments. To put it in a friendly way and very much assuming your good faith, let's pretend you handled it like you should have and I will step back. Meanwhile, since you're an admin and seem to have gotten a bit lost, I humbly suggest you take a moment to review, if you like, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NPOV and notably, WP:V. Either way, if you have any lingering concerns, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through my email link. You do have my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit was highly inappropriate since no such "concensus" exists. It is simply your opinion - one that violates WP:AGF. Indeed, you won't find any edits from those who oppose this link that claim "we can't have it because it's critical". And that's just not appropriate. Rklawton 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Since I see little consensus (and zero helpful consensus) for my take on the article, even if I strongly disagree with your means of communicating your opinion, we do happen to wholly and sincerely agree on the same outcome, which is that I step back from the article for awhile. I'm happy to do it and only came back because two different (but I must say, WP-inexperienced) editors lately posted their concerns about the stark lack of WP:NPOV at Abraham Lincoln on my talk page. The article isn't even on my watchlist. Let's think of this as settled then, ok? I'm not so hard to get along with and was bowing out of the discussion anyway, you didn't have to say a thing. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think your comment was appropriate then? Rklawton 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am asking because 1) this is a rather obvious example of an inappropriate edit, 2) to see if you'll do the civil thing and apologize to the editors you abused, and 3) failing that, to use as evidence pursuant to a proposal for a community ban against your future editing. Rklawton 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that User:Gwen Gale is hardly in any position to lecture others on the issue of civility; user is (at least on the AL talk page) in the habit of acting outside of consensus and seems to think that demonstrably political and fringe positions belong on the AL main page. Cheerful interjections aside, Gwen Gale, please stop making disruptive edits on the Abraham Lincoln page after discussion has gone against you. BusterD (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, BusterD. However, I have not acted outside of consensus, I have measured consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you have acted outside of consensus on numerous occasions, and then recommended that others review various policies when they dared revert you. Cheers! Mr Which 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You've very welcome, Gwen Gale. I hope you enjoy. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is you, Gwen Gale, whose behavior approaches violation of our expectations of civility. Rklawton has been marvelously patient with you. WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to give equal time to every attack site and fringe nutcase, such as the Rockwell material you have persisted in expecting us to treat seriously. The Lincoln article has plenty of sound scholarship, and incorporates criticism of Lincoln and his actions in the appropriate places. We are under no obligation to provide a hosting service for links to neo-Confederate apologists without credentials or credibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike, Lew Rockwell is not a neo-Confederate apologist (wou might want to do some reading up). Are we done now? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The opinion pieces he posts on his "King Lincoln" archive are indeed from neo-Confederate apologists. You might want to stop insulting people who question your sources. Cheerio! Mr Which 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is Rklawton's talk page, not the Gwen Gale bashing zone. Bye all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is "bashing" you, they're questioning your sources, and the fact that you insult people with your condescending "recommendations" that they "read up" on wikipolicies that only you think they violated. You brought the discussion here. If you wish it to continue at your talkpage, I'm sure people could cheerfully navigate over there! Glad tidings to you! Mr Which 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we take this talk where it belongs? BusterD (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since apparently that didn't work either, I've archived talk here. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to take this up a level?

She is showing no willingness to even consider that she's been much less than helpful at Abraham Lincoln. At what point do we take the evidence up a level? Mr Which 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we just stop editing on the subject. User has agreed to avoid linking the Rockwell site to any presidential site for 88 more days. If user honors that, all the rest of this is just unnecessary energy spent. If user decides to replace all variant uses of the idiom "vandalism" with pictures of little bunnies on user's page, who am I to argue? What user does to user's own page is of zero importance to me. User's contributions in pagespace are of great concern to me. My suggestion is that we ignore the (perhaps intentionally easily provoked) drama and pay attention to user's contribs for violation of the warning. User has not edited AL page since 12/1. We act best on actions in pagespace, not mere annoying talk behavior. IMHO. I believe we've established our position about user's actions in talk by posting and endorsing the vandalism tag. BusterD (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly agree to not repost the link, there is no meaningful consensus for it. Moreover, given the state of consensus at the article, I'll be happy to stay away from Abraham Lincoln for 90 days, since it's not even in my core areas of interest. Moreover, if I do wish to do any editing there in the meantime, I'll gladly approach BusterD and work with him on entering any suggestions into the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Lincoln is in my area of interest, so I will be keeping an eye on it anyway. Mr Which 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as we agree not to waste any more unnecessary time in discussion, I'm very satisfied with the resolution as proposed. I will continue to watch and edit the AL page and talk; also in my field of study. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool with me, too. I would like to see the development of a controversies section with the obvious caveat that we focus on academic rather than crank works. I believe there are some excellent analysis of his suspension of habeas corpus, as well as other military and constitutional issues. We might also/instead consider requesting an article review with an eye toward regaining FA status. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please visit her talkpage, where she's placed an accusation of bad faith editing as a reply to a sympathetic editor. I find this incredibly offensive, and have asked her to remove the accusation. As of my last check, the accusation remained. Mr Which 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not accused Mr Which of bad faith. I have strongly asserted he edited in good faith. Please ask Mr Which to let this all drop. Alternately, I'm open to your suggestions, I was only linking to the archive. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And in "linking" to the archive, you accused everyone who dared challenge you of editing in bad faith, which includes me, Rklawton, Buster, and many other editors. I "drop it" when you delete the accusation of bad faith. Mr Which 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe everyone involved has edited in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the post where you accuse us of editing otherwise. That's all I'm asking. Mr Which 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No such post exists to my knowledge (note, we're discussing this on my talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't agree

Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario Typo - Can You Correct?

Please see comments by Songflower in Perro de Presa Canario discussion.

Frangible (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Frangible (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oft Blocked User?

I just saw the article Corcoran and you said you removed unsourced material which is NOW sourced.You also stated I was an often blocked user,may I enquire as to where you got that impression?This is extremely irritating of you to suggest so as my intentions are not well meaning,how dare you.~~

I based my comments on my analysis of the article's edit history. If my analysis was incorrect, I apologize. Next point: it would be helpful if you would indicate page numbers in your references and provide in-line citations to show which reference goes with each piece of information, that would be great. This link will take your to our citation templates page which provides many different examples. If you need help adding these citations as references, please don't hesitate to ask on the article's talk page. If you include the information you are trying to add and indicate where it should go, another editor will likely come along and complete the task for you. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok very well.At least you intentions on the edit were meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cú Culainn (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star discussion

You might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've added more thoughts on the talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jean LeRoque

I tagged it as nonsense/hoax because I couldn't find one mention of the person on google. The article mentions their supposed fame, and backs it up with refs from journals supposedly by and about this person. I could find no mention of the ref documents either. So article about someone who I can't find any proof of, backed up by documents I can't find any existence of looked like a hoax to me. I have no *explicit* proof of hoax, just that it matched a pattern for creation of hoaxes I have seen from other editors before. Improbcat (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU

I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here on Misplaced Pages. I didn't think that could really happen. This is just a website! I thought. But no. I was wrong. I want to say thank you for your patience and counsel with me. Some folks have been a bit abrupt, and between figuring out how to make words blue, not to mention getting the reference codes right, not to mention understand what references are not considered appropriate, I've been barely able to breathe! Everybody thinks I'm a vandal, and I'm not, I'm just doing everything wrong.

Anyways, thanks for your patience and counsel regarding the journals. We found an amazing collection that belonged to my grandfather and his brother -- apparently this was their hobby. Some incredible stuff - I just can't believe it! I'm having so much fun reading them and learning so much that I guess I got overexcited. I'm reluctant to take them into a university (safety issues), but maybe that'd be best. This information is truly amazing.

So I guess I'll just give up Misplaced Pages and leave it to the experts. I just wanted to include some of this stuff I'm learning, but maybe this isn't the right place for it. I'd heard that Misplaced Pages was supposed to be the collected intelligence of everyone in the world, and I felt I had something to contribute. I guess I was wrong.

Your friend, Clay (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

appendix L

is called "Appendix L Interim Report on WTC". Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page - and take heed. Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a interim report on the Working Collapse Hypothesis, please restrain from making threats, please assume the good faith. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton duel GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Burr-Hamilton duel. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you significantly edited the article (as determined by WikiDashBoard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton (talk)

QE's disruption

I can't deal with the guy anymore. Raul even suggests blocking him. Perhaps we could contact Raul (or some other uninvolved admin) about placing a short block on this account to prevent his disruption. Then, if he continues, the block could be extended. Your thoughts? Mr Which??? 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What to heck am I disrupting? Your beauty sleep, your nerves, your talkpages? How can this sort of crap be acceptable! Why would I waste my time here, what to...uf, uf, uf... did I do wrong?! No, I certainly have no time for this, and after all said and done, I definitely lack the will. Please, there's no need to wake this Raul persona! Good night and good luck with the project. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are disrupting 9/11-related articles, by attempting to foist your conspiratorial theories on the articles. It seems you will not stop doing so. Classic disruption. And filling an edit summary with what is commonly thought of as symbols used to replace profanity is not good form either. Mr Which??? 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

QE, if you have difficulty following our policies and guidelines, then your decision to leave is undoubtedly for the best. Good-bye and good luck. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres

I reverted your malicious edit. "The Independent" and RAI are not fringe sources - they have rather more reliability and credibility than, for example, the New York Times. - Sarah777 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This belongs on the article's talk page. Oh, and characterizing my edits as "malicious " is not civil and violates the good faith assumption. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, as you are clearly engaging in edit warring the warning belongs here. Which source do you think is "fringe"? The Independent or RAI? (Sarah777 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Discussions about an article belong on the article's talk page where all interested editors may participate. Editing warring involves reverting without discussion - which isn't something I have done. Rklawton (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes you have. Check the chronology. First you reverted; then you want to discuss. I call that edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

My first edit and all subsequent edits included detailed edit summaries. You reverted back without so much as an edit summary. Rklawton (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted again. Please note I did not "revert"; I resubmitted the massacre with yet another reference (the 4th). YOU should stop reverting. OK? (Sarah777 (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Adding a non-source (self-published) doesn't count - check WP:3RR if you like. I will not hesitate to block you if you continue. Adding obvious POV sources to support your POV violates NPOV. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/GrabbyAwardWinners1993.html
2. http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/ProbeAwards1995.html
3. http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/GayEroticVideoAwards1995.html