User talk:John/Archive 2006

:He is clearly revert warring without using the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75971166&oldid=75970846, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75970135&oldid=75970045, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&action=history, for example. Asking him to use the talk page is not 'stirring it up', in none of those edits did he even make a meaningful edit summary, let alone discuss repeated questions on the talk page. Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to behave like this you risk being blocked yourself. --Guinnog 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Which part of my behavior are you talking about? Please be specific. Do you mean asking Wahkeenah to use the talk page and stop revert warring? Please clarify, thanks, Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have reverted him twice. My final revert for the day was to put it back to a version that he had told its editor (Arglebarger) was satisfactory. Wahkeenah 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for clarifying that. --Guinnog 02:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::That item of mine you just quoted back to me was from about 24 hours ago, before I got slapped (justifiably) by an admin regarding an unrelated article. Today I am trying to live up to what I said in the item you quoted, namely that I am no longer responding to that user's attempts to bait me. Wahkeenah 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Without wanting to feed him, Wahkeenah admits that he is refusing to discuss his edits on the talk page. I find I am at a loss to know how to deal with a user who openly refuses to use Wikipedia process to discuss his edits (which I still feel are reverts). Your suggestions would be welcome. Carfiend 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::Whenever you get a chance, I would actually appreciate a response. Carfiend 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, your silence speaks volumes. ;) Carfiend 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your unspoken question, I've no idea about the truth behind this topic. My interest is the editing process as played out on wikipedia and how that process is ma nifest in thevapplicability and value of the content. The article in question is an excellent vehicle to examine that process AND, most importantly, no other editor seems to share my prespective on the value of substancial and carefully edited articles on topics such as these. Your all obsessed with either pro/con POV or reaching some bizarrely awkward balance that has resulted in the mess we have now. Numskll 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AApollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=75984703&oldid=75984118

Should I understand this edit as a commitment on your part to keep the topic I started on topic? Numskll 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Exactly. --Guinnog 12:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First and only reply on the topic was a flame, and villation of QP:AGF and WP:NPA. It's better to give disruptive a place to play. Numskll 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog my block has finally expired and I'm eager to start on those proposals you sent me :)

dan --Frogsprog 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --Robth^Talk 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I sorted the interwiki links for the Fungus article and added an LV link. You removed the LV link and mixed them back what is like reverting my edit completely. Why did you do it? I don't see how the spelling mistake correction is an appropriate reason for this kind of editing. --Knakts 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting. It looks like we both tried to make similar edits at almost the same time. I have no idea how it ended up doing what it it did. Thanks for letting me know. --Guinnog 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

::OK

Hi, this keeps showing up under RfA oppose votes. How many is enough? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:It's not a silly question at all, it's a very good question. I am reluctant to put a hard number on it, as I know editcountitis is evil, but I think I would look for around 2000 minimum, although I would always bend that for a candidate who absolutely blew me away in other regards. Certainly I think 602 is too few. --Guinnog 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=76222098&oldid=76219752 Thanks]Dlohcierekim 13:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog you seem to be online, so I thought this might be the fastest place to get attention. I see you blocked the above user for 48 hours for vandalism on 2006-09-16. Unfortunately they're back and right back to their old behavior. See their latest edit to Natascha Kampusch[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natascha_Kampusch&diff=76406836&oldid=76403264]. "Dahneel" is the name the vandal inserted into previous articles. Do we have to go through all the warnings again before the user is blocked, or can you just shut them down straight away? (In case it's useful - IP's contributions:Special:Contributions/203.206.175.46, Bloglog:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:203.206.175.46]) Thanks --SiobhanHansa 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. I've warned them and will block again if they continue to vandalise. --Guinnog 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks! I guess I was hoping we could dispense with all that for a 4th block. I'll follow more process next time :-) --SiobhanHansa 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26 18 September 2006 (GMT).

Hi Guinnog - As a user and admin who seems to be interested in things South African, I would appreciate your input here. There is an unverifiable statement in the Tupac Shakur article that Nelson Mandela will be at the planned spreading of Tupac's ashes in Soweto in 2007. But, every time I delete the reference to Mandela, a certain user adds it back. I've tried to discuss the issue on the talk page to get some concensus, but the conversation is missing the point. The user has pointed out one article from an Australian source that mentions Mandela would be at the planned spreading of Tupac's ashes this year (which was cancelled), but there is no article anywhere (especially not in South Africa, as the talk page shows) that verifies he will be there in 2007 (or was planning on being there this year for that matter). I think this is a moment of very weak research that needs to be corrected. As someone who is interested in South African issues, and someone who seems to have a level head and open eyes, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the issue. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers, Jason Lionchow 08:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and corrections to the article. Unfortunately, I have found that there is much misinformation on WP about Africa in general, some small, some large, and this is just one instance. Hopefully I can help correct more. Lionchow 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I added Scotland (and Ireland) to my 'travelling' box. I don't know how I forgot them. If you noticed one of my userboxes says that I enjoy drinking, and it is my dream to tour the distilleries of the world, so how could I leave out Scotland! Cheers, Jason Lionchow 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - Glen 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I liked what you did for User:Newyorkbrad. Any chance of having a look at mine? Sorry to be so cheeky and I won't mind in the least if you have better things to do. Thanks if you can manage anything, --Guinnog 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:Sure Guinnog, no problem! I'd love to! If you can give me a few parameters, that would be great, and I can try to do it within 24 hours. These details would be great:

::*A table border color

::*A table background color (if you want one)

::*A text color/any other style (if you want one other than black, default sans serif font)

::*A color/any other style for the headings (if you don't want the default)

::*Any other special things :-)

:—Mets501 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm all done for now. Hope you like it! If there's anything else I can do for you in the future just let me know! :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think that because you've gained admin status you have some newfound right to patronise other users. Behaviour like that certainly doesn't help the project. I've held my tongue thusfar because you seem to be a good contributor, but please refrain from making idle, pointless threats. Rebecca 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:Spare me the police officer routine. This dispute has been going on for months. We had a very lengthy discussion about this earlier in the year, and the sections referred to on my talk page were thus removed. Why Tenebrae is taking an old version out of the history and then claiming it as policy I have no idea. The current version of the MOS, which is without the guidance they were relying upon, is quite stable and hasn't been changed significantly in several months. Despite this, two users, Bobblewik and Hmains (I was mistaken in thinking that Quadell had gone back to this, and have apologised accordingly), have consistently refused to engage in any discussion and continue to use an automated script designed by Bobblewik to kill any and all date links in sight. Bobblewik has been blocked numerous times by numerous users for this, and very narrowly escaped a community ban the last time the issue came up. Having had to deal with this for months, I've found that the only way of getting either of them to stop is to respond to their bot-like-removals with bot-like reversions. They still won't discuss and try and get any sort of consensus for their actions, but at least making it clear that their edits will not stand prevents the damage from the ongoing running of their script. Rebecca 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits of the moon page?

A Stand Up Guy 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from your (other?) user talk page)

I reverted a few of your edits where you were changing "Moon" to "moon". In fact, as the Moon article explains, it is capitalised in the case of the Earth's natural satellite. Please also seek consensus for any future changes of this kind, and it will save another editor (in this case me) having to clean up after you. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I got my own back by making some sneaky edits to your user page! Thanks for all your good work. --Guinnog 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm as useless at conferring barnstars as I am at designing pages, but I join in the sentiments! Newyorkbrad 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks guys! —Mets501 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your intervention. It seems that Rebecca is carrying out her promise to use rollback on my edits. Does this constitute stalking? bobblewik 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also being stalked by Rebecca, having been mass reverted in the past, and a new threat yesterday. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Hmains 04:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be difficult as Rebecca acts on her theory that every date that was ever linked in any article is to remain linked forever. And she fights everyone with every means avaiable. Thanks Hmains 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

now you're an admin I ask you to take a look at this and take action at your discretion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedians&oldid=76986679, these edits were made by User talk:70.48.182.191, I have warned them, but please could you check if I used the correct template, thanks --Frogsprog 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:Looks good to me, thanks for the heads up. Another user just gave them a final warning; if they vandalise again I will block them. Best, --Guinnog 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The error was corrected. Disregard! Thanx.The dugout 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm slowly working my way through referencing the railways. When I get to Eastriggs I'll be able to check the original source and find out. IIRC it was a WWII ammunition dump, but could well be wrong. Best, Gwernol 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir,

You have deleted my Ouroborous without explanation. Why? I will forward the e-mail from the library.

Robert Prummel 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since then i have found out about the stricter rules.. they are stiffling! But it is not your fault Guinnog! Robert Prummel 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog I need your help, I removed a POV tag from Lancashire because the article has been corrected, and then i posted on the talk page of george w bush in a discussion about a new template message. User:MONGO reverted my edits so I warned him against removing content and now he is warning me of vandalism. Please help me --Frogsprog 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Morton_devonshire AN/I], regarding User:Morton devonshire. Tyrenius 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you will not allow my contribution about Cademuir International School? You critiscised me for not putting enough evidence, so I put pretty extensive evidence (newspaper articles) and you delete them in a few minutes! What is going on here? Your article did not cover this extensive evidence of abuse reported in 2001 in two reputable national newspapers. If you prefer that the articles are merely linked, or attached as images, then fair enough. but to just delete them? Is that not covering up for child abuse? Not that I am accusing you of this, but please explain why you seem determined to delete these details. If you check editions of these papers at these dates, they will verify them word for word. I did not just dream this stuff up, to not include these details is not what Wikipedia is all about.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs)

:I have replied in your talk page. --Guinnog 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? You don't think it adds much?

Let me please repeat this. You don't think that two national newspapers both accusing the managment of a bording school of multiple serious cases of child abuse add anything to an article about the school?

You don't think child abuse worth mentioning?

If your issue is with the validity of these articles, full text of them can be found using "HighBeam Research", a web based archive.

20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Prescott

I have already read it and I don't like the way you dismissively assume I hadn't. The fact, for example, that the school was investigated by police for child abuse is not an unsubstantiated allegation, it is a matter of record, worthy of note. Please do not tell me that further evidence is requirde, because if you do not accept back issues of national newspapers as credible evidence then you should reconsider your existentialist like criteria. If you can not find them that is not my fault, it does not change the historic record. If you can't find them and yet I have copies of them, why are YOU editing MY contribution? Is this not abusing your position? Sorry to be so argumentative but do you have evidence for the holocaust? did you see it with your own eyes? Do you accept it to be true or are you a holocaust denier? (I mean this rhetorically). Denying allegation of child abuse is however a serious issue, please take a moment before deciding on this, and please, I feel I deserve a bit more explanation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs)

The sources ARE verifiable. How much more verifiable do you want? As I have stated, the sources are from two national newspapers, and I have also told you an on-line archive where you can find them. What more do you want? Or is it the case that you just delete anything you want that doesn't come up after a quick google check? There is a difference between something being not verifiable and something which takes a small amount of effort to verify. If you tell me how I can make it easier to verify this then let me know. but I think giving you full text, with the authors name, the publication, and an on-line source is REFERENCED and VERIFIABLE. 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Prescott

This is what you said:

"Because Robert Mulvey, the founder of the school, is still alive, we have to be extra careful about what we include in the article about his school. Because the sources you want us to use are not verifiable, we cannot include them. Hope that is all clear now. --Guinnog 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)"

This is what Wikipedia says:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

It then goes on to say:

If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.

What you are saying does not appear consistent with Wikipedia's policy. Are you seriously telling me there is no way I can get anything on a Wikipedia page about someone who is alive regardless of how much evidence there is if it does not come up instantly in a google search? 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott

Can you please let me know why you are saying my sources are unverifiable (and explain why you are disregarding Wikipedia's guidlines as to the definition of verifiability) 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott

Hi Guinnog - Please vote on the proposed move of the 'South African farmer murders' page. The straw poll is here. Please also pass this message on to others you think would be interested. Thank you! Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

to quote you:

"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site. "

- You can access the full contents of the site without paying a penny, they offer a week's free trial.

"My issue with the article is that I'm not sure, even if we could reference it properly, whether adding this info to the article is really necessary, given the legal implications I referred to already."

- Do you really think this information not worth a mention? How does that fit in with the ethos of Wikipedia, that because something may be a tough issue which requires sensitive handling we just don't bother? I am merely asking that the fact that numerous allegations have been made, and investigated by the police, be worth a mention. Surely there is a way to do this on a proper legal footing.

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to air your grievances with the school, however well-founded they may be."

- These are not MY greviences. These are greivances which were considered sufficient enough for two mainstream national newspapers to air. yes I have greivances with the school, and they go a lot further than this, but I have shown restraint in not airing them here, I am sticking to what is in the public domain, and is VERIFIABLE according to Wikipedia's policies, as I have quoted.

"My other issue, increasingly, is that I really don't like the tone you are taking with me. I understand you may be frustrated at not getting the article the way you would have liked it; please understand that I am only doing my job in keeping wikipedia free of POV-pushing scandal which could ultimately lead to danger for the project."

Maybe I have my reasons for creating the article but I have only reported what is in the public domain, as I have said. I have also said several times that I would be willing to revise the tone if you felt this to be necessary. But instead you just delete the entire submission out of hand.

"Any future sarcasm from you will simply be ignored by me. Any future "rhetorical" shots along the previous lines of comparing me with a holocaust-denier may result in a block for incivility. --Guinnog 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) "

- I did not compare you with a holocaust denier, I was merely pointing out that I find it offensive that you should choose to not include this information, this is disrespectful to the victims of this abuse. Considering that it is very well referenced, and that I have offered to help you substantiate it further, I think it is very inconsiderate to just delete the whole thing. In the example given in Wikepedia's guide on Verifiability, the example given is when something has been published in a reputable newspaper. This has been in two. If you are unable to verify it, then tell me how I can help you. Are you really telling me that despite this information being in the public domain, because you personally can not find it then it is unverifiable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs)

:I acknowledge your message. Let me think about it. Please don't add the material back meantime. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr Guinnog for your help and support. :) It is very much appreciated. I just sent you an email. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know your reversions were in good faith, but please be more careful next time when reverting edits. When you rolled-back some of this IP's edits, you also removed some constructive edits along with any vandalism that was added. Thanks. Shadow1 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Oops. When I was reading the contribs list, I initially meant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pterophyllum&diff=prev&oldid=77923867 this], but then I went back and noticed that I was wrong. Sorry mate! Shadow1 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I very enthusiastically second the above! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you both very much. It is this kind of positive feedback that keeps us all going through thick and thin. We should probably all do it more. --Guinnog 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

you created an article about a river called the jura river. I don't think it exists. I can't find anything about it on the internet. I think it should be deleted, or expanded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotto263 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the support Guinnog, as always I greatly appreciate it. Gwernol 01:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog - I know you just love spending time dealing with the Crime Expo South Africa article, so I thought I would ask you a question. User:NdlovuX is edit warring with other editors (yourself, User:Zunaid, myself), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_Expo_South_Africa&action=history here] is the page history. He/she has reverted edits made by those three editors 4 times in the last 24hrs, in order to include info about someone's blog (which obviously doesn't meet wp:rs). What recourse is there at this point, so that one does not have to baby-sit this page and user? Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

: Cheers. Just wasn't sure what the process is. - Jason Lionchow - Talk 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some specific objection to Morton Devonshire's? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Yes. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morton_devonshire&diff=prev&oldid=78702987]. Tbeatty has now refactored my remarks to avoid repeating the offensive and possibly actionable remarks. Morton has, in trying to tone down the libel, actually made it worse in my opinion, as I intend to tell him. I don't see why anybody needs to have material like this on a user page; it's hard to think of an encyclopedic reason. --Guinnog 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not let this become (or be seen as) some kind of personal prosecution. Consider mediation or an RfC if you think it's warranted. I suggest a couple of weeks of everyone avoiding each other might be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think the word 'libel' is being slung around way too casually. I'm going to try to follow my own advice and leave this alone for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate I was wondering if you could tell me how i get access to the page Bush family conspiracy theory that has been deleted. So i can have a copy for myself. Is case you are wondering I am not the original writer as i think the delete artist thinks i am I had book marked the page for a article i plan to write! i don’t agree with the censorship going on in this website and believe that my in fact make a better piece. I would however like to have a copy of the page for my own use! can you help! Also could you give me a quick guide as to how a new person asks for a deletion to be reviewed and if you have the time explain how people become administrators ? Thanks Freedomspeechman 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog, this is alexandrepv talking. I notice that you have removed the robot's definition that I posted. I am new here in wikipedia(I signed up a few hours ago) and I still have things to learn about how wiki works. Maybe you are right, I just put the definition without any explanation but I didn't think someone could actually remove it...

The reason I did not put a explanation is because I was typing at the computer centre at my university, between classes. I study Robotics and Automated Systems at the University of Plymouth and I already studied the definition of a robot. The definition I put before was the right one.

Many machines are denominated robots when in fact they are not. A remote control car or a remote control "robot" designed to disarm bombs are only tele-controled machines because the became a extended part of the operator. Machines that do only one type of work, non-reprogrammable machines, are just machines. A is for definition a machine that has inputs sensors and output actuators and is able respond to stimulus in a intelligent way. The intelligent may be a program-defined routine(electronic or mechanic program), a artificial neuron network behaviour or any other kind of decision control. A robot arm in a assembly line of a car: I may do only one job, welding for example, but it is able to be reprogrammed to do some other tasks as well. In terms of sensors, even though it seams to have no sensors at all, because it only repeats one task, it does have and these sensors are monitoring its joints making sure that the turn the right amount of degrees. This is called: Feedback control.

I put the definition back again before reading you message, feel free to remove because it has no explanation but I intend to write down a paragraph to explain it. Ok?

well, thanks for the hint.

Regards

Alexandrepv

Someone added a link to a fake bape reseller, SB Kicks, should that be removed?

--24.37.148.241 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the bape article, I tough you were a contributor.

--24.37.148.241 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I believe the section in question was accurate, but it does need a citation. Best as always, Gwernol 21:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guinnog! Thank you for welcoming me on Wikipedia on my talk page. You are the first to do that in....uhh..a long time! Anyway, I need help on making userboxes. I've read the Wikipedia page on Userboxes, but it's too complicated for me to understand. Please leave me a message on my talk page. Also, I need to know how old i can be to be an admin. I have my thoughts on becoming one. Thanks a lot! ¡Adios amigo! Kyo cat 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Kyo cat

Acting as his advocate, I've been discussing the 'datelinking conflict' with Hmains here, if you have any input on the issue would you please drop me a note on my talk page ? Thanks very much. User:Pedant 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please help calm User talk:DeLarge down? What is happening to manners on Wikipedia? bobblewik 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I fixed a spelling error (fexing to fixing), which is ironic since you said that you fix spelling errors yourself, unless you were trying to be funny and did that on purpose, oh well. Also, I took the liberty in correcting your misplaced periods. Periods are always inside the ending quotation mark. "Simple." Have a nice day.Wi-king 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for that. I always did think it looked funny. ;) --Guinnog 05:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

Myself and User:Cswrye are currently discussing rating an article within Wikiproject: Psychology - specifically NPA personality theory. Would it be possible for you to provide additional insight, as and when it is convenient? Thank you! :)-- D-Katana 13:58, 04 October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I am a student in first International Chess University. I saw that you removed the link I contributed. IchessU is the first real international chess universtity. International Chess University is a very serious organization, specializes on giving live audio and video chess lessons. Actually, this is the only link in the list of learning chess links which is really rellevant to learning chess. Although am a student there but I am not paid for bringing people in. I just want people to know about the site. I really believe that IchessU is a site may interest many people as it has one of the best FREE playgrounds + it's unique international chess university. IchessU is listed under external links and suppose just to provide people with information, as main Wikipedia purpose is. It's NOT a commercial or personal-website link !!! I agree that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising but a site which suppose provide people with information and this is exactly what I tried to do.

I even opened a discussion group on this topic.

I agree that a link to ichessu in every section under "External Links" might look like a spam. I will not spam the ads, so I am returning the link to learning section only.

Please dont remove it anymore.

Best Regards, Alik Fishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikfi (talk • contribs)

I did open a discussion topic. People suggested to publish the link only once. That's what I did.

Please withdraw your objection and republish the link.

By the way, I suggest you to visit the university and have impressions by yourself.

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikfi (talk • contribs)

"Alfiki, you added a link to ichessu in every section under "External Links". Don't spam your ads, pick one section and be done with it. Banaticus 09:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikfi (talk • contribs)

What about that article did you not see as saying there is a knifecrime problem in Glasgow? I am going to edit it again.

Please, do not vandalize my edits without giving a real reason. Nlsanand 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to spin it. Wanted to put the link in. Reword it if you want (within reason). I am not trying to put Glasgow in a negative light. Keep in mind, the crime section is only a couple of sentences long, and it is a major problem in Glasgow. Wanted to give some context to measures implemented by police. Nlsanand 05:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Take care Mr Guinnog. Catch up when you get back. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog, good work on the nitrous oxide article! My compliments! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We have not heard back from you on your mediation committee nomination, specifically a request by a current member for more information on your part. If you could please take a look at it and reply, that would be great. Thanks.

For the Mediation Committee,

-^demon^{[yell at me]} 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The User: Wahkeenah seems to have a fascination with edit waring. Is it possible to have him warned. He coninuously deletes posts, and comments on his user page without rational, while violating 3RR. When request for reasons for deletion are made, he gives no legitimate response. See Cesar Chavez for examples. 67.162.212.254 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• There have been repeated attempts by (apparently) various users to revise the wiki policy manual on biographies (and always in the same poorly-written phraseology) to "allow" race and sexual orientation to be cited in the opening paragraph... including, if I recall, the one who just posted the above. That's what this is about. Wahkeenah 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• He'll just come back as another user. This started (or at least my part of it did) with user Cliesthenes and the Rosie O'Donnell page. User Dcflyer was actually fighting this vandal before I was, and I'm guessing Cliesthenes and its many sockpuppets have "reported" him also. Unfortunately, the admin who blocked me for 3 hours at the time of the Rosie O'Donnell dispute did not bother to look any further into it, so I concluded admins were not really interested in the details. Maybe it was just that one. Anyway, if I see further attempts at that same vandalism on Rosie O'Donnell, César Chávez, Lance Bass and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) by (apparently) that same user, I will let you know. Wahkeenah 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• And by the way, I was right, that 67...254 user (and various sockpuppets) is also engaged in an edit battle with user Dcflyer. Wahkeenah 00:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• That user, or a sockpuppet, is trying to start a debate on the Talk:César Chávez#Request for comment page. He knows full well what the issue is. He's just trying to accelerate the conflict. Wahkeenah 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Please explain how Wahkeenah can violate several policies, and go against clear consensus on a talk page, and I am the one in trouble? I made a reasonable edit. Other posters ahve agreed with it. All I recieved in return from Wahkeenah and Dcflyer, was revision, after revision in violation of3RR. I pointed this out to both of the m. I attempted to get help from several admins. Instead, I get in trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.212.254 (talk • contribs)

::How is saying Cesar Chavez is a mexican american wrong? One user cited an article from the library of Congress that refers to him as such. It is not POV, or vandalism. The mostvalid response given against the change was that someone tried change a policy. So what? That fact has no effect on the change to Cesar Chavez. They aren't even related. Furthermore, the current policy Wahkeenah refers to even explicitly allows for the change.

::When do admins actually enforce the rules? Warnings cannot be deleted from user pages. Dcflyer, and Wahkeenah are allowed to break this rule. Edit wars are not allowed to occur, yet Dcflyer, and [[Wahkeenah can break the rules. 3RR is not allowed to occur, yet Dcflyer, and Wahkeenah break it at will. Consensus needs to be achieved for a change, yet Dcflyer and Wahkeenah are allowed to break this. Good faith must be assumed, yet Dcflyer, and Wahkeenah can assume a giant conspiracy, and ignore statements from other posters.

::When will an admin actually enforce what is said. If I broke the rules--punish me. However, I am far from the only guilty party here.

::I only wanted to make some changes for the better, yet any change I make I get called a vandal, and harassed by Dcflyer, and Wahkeenah. When will it end? 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.212.254 (talk • contribs)

I think you will find that the now-banned user Cliesthenes is the source of all of this stuff, including changing the policy manual to justify its own arguments, and that there was in fact no consensus at all to do so. The dead giveaway is the re-insertion of the identical and grammatically questionable sentences by several "different" users, as well as posting a specifically worded paragraph "warning" us against deleting vandal-posted comments on our own talk pages. Wahkeenah 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: I don't have time to look at this now until afternoon GMT tomorrow. If anyone else wants to chime in here in the meantime? Please sign your posts, 67.162.212.254 --Guinnog 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Wahkeenah, you are dumber then I thought. I am not banned. I am not even the anon poster you claim I am. Your entire argument is full of holes. I asked the guy to help me make an edit or two for the better. He helped. As for you, unlike an adult, you decided to assume the world was coming to an end because someone wanted to place the term "homosexual" in a heading. Even when requesting rational for your deletions, you ignored the requests, and acted like a cranky child. The pathetic part is you are still discussing it. Face the fact, not every poster who disagrees with you is me. I haven't posted as Cliesthenesin a month.Heck, I haven't even been reported for a month. Oh, and in case you are too stupid to realize, I haven't been banned. On a personal note, get a life. It is clear Wikipedia isn't helping in that area. Have a nice life. Cliesthenes 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Apparently I was mistaken about that user being banned. The above comments say a lot about that user's general attitude. It only went away for awhile, as users will sometimes do when they are threatened with banishment. Be that as it may, User talk:Dcflyer also contains references to that user and its various (apparent) sockpuppets' continued disruptions, POV-pushing and the clincher (conveniently left out of the above) of trying to change the wording in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) to aid in that POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Cliesthenes wrote above, "I asked the guy to help me make an edit or two for the better. He helped." I think that would fall under meatpuppet. And now, "suddenly," Cliesthenes has reappeared right after Wahkeenah and I independently raised his/her name in comments. If you have a chance, please take a look at my comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez#Request_for_comment here]. It contains relevant links. Thank you. -- Dcflyer 11:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have apologized to user "LittleOldMe" for implicitly lumping him in as one of Cliesthenes' sockpuppets, as it appears that he has done other work and simply stumbled into this fiasco. Meanwhile, to be accused by Cliesthenes of being dumber "then" he thought is too funny for words. Wahkeenah 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::[Wahkeenah]] get a life. Not everyone is a sockpuppet. From your postings on this page alone, you have accused three people of being me. When will you learn? Are you literaly so stupid you cannot see what is going on here? This whole situation was/is caused by you. Instead of acting like an adult, you act like a child. You accuse numerous posters of being a sockpuppet. You claim random IPs are me. Looking at your postings, you have even claimed several other screen names are me. Don't you think you are over-reacting? This is wikipedia ... not the national archives. Secondly, what is the worst thing I have done? Make a change to policy I felt needed correction, and was in a rational and legitimate interest? State that well-known homosexuals are homosexuals? Neither of these actions are illegal. They are not libel. You just disagree with them. Is your opinion so much better than everyone else's opinion.

::I only came back because I passed by your posting on Cesar Chavez and I felt bad--and slightly bewildered at your stupidity. I came here to attempt to defend the guy. He helped me make a change or two that we both agreed with. You simply overreacted. Just let it go. Starting a war with every edit is a bit much. Looking at your user page should be evidence of this fact.

::To be honest, this whole situation would end if you acted like a mature adult. Instead of trying to claim everyone is a sockpuppet, or any change is vandalism, or reverting changes numerous times; try leaving the page for a day and come back if you disagree with the change. Or even better, try actually trying to come to a consensus. However, I get the feeling that letting a small thing you disagree with pass (even for an hour) is too a bit too much. Heck, even asking for your rational for your changes is too much (even when someone you admit is not me asked).

::I feel bad for whatever his IP is, however, I feel even worse for you. Assuming for a moment, either I, or he gets banned. What does that accomplish? Do you reallt think it is that hard to get an new IP address? In the past month, you claimed I have had numerous IPs.

::All I ask is that byou act like a rational adult. Isn't the whole point of this website to try to come to some consensus, and state real fact? WHy are you hiding real fact, without even giving a reason? Cliesthenes 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The other user, Dcflyer, already proved the case, including your continual attempts to change the wiki manuals to support what you want to change in the articles. Wahkeenah 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Enlighten me. What "case" has he proven? The five pages, and days of work on user:hollywolly that accomplished nothing? I felt bad for that user too. In case you haven't paid attention (all it takes is looking at user:dcflyer's talk page to see this info). Hollywolly was not me, and had no relation to me. Furthermore, what court was this "case" argued in?

::What continued edits have I made? Please show me where I made this "continued" edit. I checked my contributions. They seem to be nonexistent. You seem to think I care about this stuff. Honestly, I created this account to play arround a little. In doing so, I got the best of you--as is obvious since you continue to discuss this crap. If you hadn't reacted like you did, it wouldn't have been fun. It appears others have taken notice and are playing the same games with you. Do you get what I have been trying to say? Just let it go.

::Trolls don't like it when you stop paying attention to them. I haven't done anything--even remotley--wrong in awhile. Please show my connection? What is my IP address? Is it the same? How am I connected to the various posts? Did you do a check user? Or is this--accusation--simply your, or Dcflyer's opinion?

::Guinnog, I have no problem with you. I respect any decision you make. Even if it includes blocking this account/IP. I appologize for making what seemed to be personnal attacks. You must understand the annoyance of what is occuring. A group of posters are literally claiming numerous people are me. It simply isn't true. Even Wahkeenah has admitted at least once, that the accusation has been false. It appears he wants to pull the trigger to early in his assumption. However, I still believe every edit I made was well intentioned, and within the limits of of WP:BLP. I have not once posted a single false thing about any individuals. In fact, without my help, several of the edits were made and have remained on pages for several days without the actions of the above mentioned posters. A prime example is Rosie Odonnell. See the first paragraph. Furthermore, the actions of the above mentioned posters have also violated WP:BLP. Isn't it their duty to assume that the edits are made in good faith. Not every edit is vandalism. Particularly when the edit is based on a rationale for what a person is known for. For example, Rosie O'Donnell is well known for having come out. Adding this was considered vandalism without any rational. The same with Ellen Degeneres. This goes even farther. The Cesar Chaves reversion by the above mentioned posters is a clear violation of good faith. There was even a source cited for the inclusion, and several posters approval of the edit (who even Wahkeenah admits weren't me), yet this was deleted without rational as vandalism. Is saying someones nationality or actual sexual orientation vandalism? Please xplain this. I have asked time and again for a rational, yet posters who are supposed to act in good faith, refuse to answer. I hope you, a reasonable person, will take the time to answer this reasonable question. Thank you Guinnog. I appologize for trying your patience. Cliesthenes 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:On a side note, one other question. THe above posters have repeatedly stated I am user: HollyWolly, a known vandal. Out of interest, I looked at the users contributions. What did the user do to deserve a lifetime ban? From what I could see, HollyWolly didn't do anything that amazing. Furthermore, how was HollyWolly connected to Frogsprog (whatever the name was). It says they were connected "by their edits." However, looking at their history, it appears they may have made one edit that was the same. I guess my main question is: What is the burden necessary in Wikipedia for this assumption, and what is the level of conduct that creates the action of a lifetime ban. Is one similar edit really enough to create a connection to a user, and to subsequently ban the user? I'm not claiming either party is innocent, the lawyer in me just couldn't help but ask. In the court room, a burden of beyond a reasonable doubt is needed for criminal sanctions. In wikipedia, blocking, and banning would be considered a "wikipedia criminal sanction." I am sure the burden is far lower, however, the rational for the lifetime ban of at least HollyWolly (one similar edit as a basis) seems to be a stretch under even the most liberal construction of any "burden." Thanks. Cliesthenes 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog,

I am having trouble with user Vintagekits (and others) and I noticed that you also have had problems with him. There seems to be a clique of supporters of the boxer John Duddy who are intent on creating a 'John Duddy' fan page and at the same time wage war on the 'Boxrec' page. The background to this being that because Duddy was born and bred in Northen Ireland he is (rightly or wrongly) listed as British on the boxrec.com website.

Can both these pages be edited by disinterested parties who have access to the facts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penetrating Fluid (talk • contribs)

:The above poster has been blocked for his inappropriate username. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for tackling that big backlog. --Dweller 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: Glad to have you on 'our' side. --Dweller 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you pull up a edit far into my contribution history somewhat berating some faceless anon who removed somebody else's comment from a talk page, one of the most expressely frowned upon actions in Wikipedia in most cases, out of nowhere, and then give support for the one breaking Wikipedia custom? It doesn't matter if it's a "eyesore". It was somebody else's comment for the improvation of Wikipedia, and editing such things is something I refuse to tolerate. Interrobamf 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm afraid I hardly see your interpretation of my summaries. That is what occurs with something entirely subjective like civility and the fact that you're trying to judge my tone through text, I suppose. Interrobamf 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog... Interrobamf replied to me on my talk page, I've refactored it back to his, same thread as where you were (and which I assume the above replies refer to).. you may want to give it a look. It is User_talk:Interrobamf#Warning. Thanks for any further thoughts you may have. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you added this comment on the Discussion page of Jason Shand "I don't want to overdo it but the article is in need of some major cleanup at the moment. It reads like an advert for the subject."

I would like to just ask about that, what do you mean Reads like an Advert! I dont personally think I've written it any differently to any other page of a person - Chris Moyles for example is a Radio Presenter's wiki page i looked at before writing the Jason Shand page to get tips and inspiration for writing it up.

However on the cleanup front, There is more information to be added, and I hope you can appreciate Mr Shand is a busy man so for me to get Factual Information from him about his History (without them conversations between me and Mr Shand I would not be able to get as much information as I have). Afterall this wiki is meant to be about Fact not Fiction!.

feel free to get back to me regarding this or any advise for me about writing the page at my Talk Page, (EditorSH 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

I'll ask around first; I asked both people who made such quotes if they wanted the quotes on their user pages before I posted them.. If other people agree with you, I'll remove it :) WhisperToMe 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it - the intent is not to criticize people - It's just a quote collection from IRC. WhisperToMe 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you, so far, are the only person who I know takes offense to the quotes. I do not know about receiving any other complaints about that. If I find a lot of people who do, I will remove it. WhisperToMe 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just as the Eskimos have 49 words for snow, the Japanese have 120 terms for old people stabbing each other over minor slights." refers to a story where an old man stabbed a fellow old man at a retirement home over who gets to take a bath first. WhisperToMe 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are from #Wikipedia - on irc.freenode.net - It's an unofficial Wikipedia chatroom. Therefore the quotes are communications with people involved with Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 05:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, it's appreciated!--Konst.able 05:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:And for mine too. I've just looked at your user page and I'm jealous - how do you design a page like that?! All I do is write...! Bentley Banana 10:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought Whiskey was wrong! Typical.

Although not having an actual relationship with Shiv, I have just checked the opening chapter to Fleshmarket Close, which says that they had shared a kiss/clinch after one of their cases (whether that was at the end of the previous book I can't remember) creating tension between them - that Siobhan felt but 'you could never tell with Rebus'. Perhaps I should have worded it differently to cover the sexual tension between them. Maybe something could go in...

Mdcollins1984 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at Question of Blood which talks about the unexpected hug Rebus gives Shiv, and the long lingering kiss (his eyes tight shut, hers wide open) -ok so not exactly romance but a source of tension!

Mdcollins1984 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:No problem! It definately needs including, but not as you say actually consummated...I'll have a look, but feel free to change! The other characters pages that were created a while back are still looking rather thin too. I'll add it to my 'to do' list.

Mdcollins1984 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw your name hitherward, and thought I'd attempt to adopt you. It seems that you don't need adopting. Nice userpage. I wish I could get mine looking smooth as yours does, instead of all bulky... Good work! I rate it:

|}

Regards,

The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to add the template to the top of your talk page by typing {{subst:User:Hunterd/Template:KA}} The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your kind message. When adding category templates to articles you don't want to show up in the category itself, you can use a colon, for example :Category:Users seeking adoption. Beast wishes, --Guinnog 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guinnog. It's looking better but it is in desperate need of some v references. I just removed some headings and I'm kind of inclined to remove the "other details" heading and incorporate those points into the text somewhere. I also feel like the show features list should go, what do you think? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Check out the "PLEASE HELP PROMOTE ME!" on the myspace link [http://www.jasonshand.co.uk/]. 8| Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Nice work, Mr G. It's looking much better. Thanks for doing all that. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::I don't want it to be deleted it or anything as your copyedit has satisfied a lot of my concerns about the tone, but you know, he really doesn't get many g-hits. The vast majority of the ones for his name seem to be for a Jason Shand who is a British singer-songwriter. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the rollback button is for obvious vandalism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet&diff=next&oldid=81583246 This] revert was not for vandalism, and the user in question has only made two edits. Remember WP:BITE! Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's been agreed at Talk:Cane_Toad#spelling to keep the article to Australian English (ie. humourous). Thanks for your understanding. :) - Malkinann 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Humorous is correct worldwide, see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/H for example. There is a fuller discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Typo#Dictionary.com]. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree - especially as Humour seems to be the wikipedia standard. ;) Wiktionary also lists 'humourous' as an acceptable alternative, and humour /humourous is what's given in the Australian dictionaries that I've seen. Is it neccessary for a FA to use American English? As Cane Toad is primarily an Australian article, I believe that the spelling should be left as humourous. - Malkinann 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::As I said, "humorous" is not an American spelling but the worldwide spelling. "Humourous" is an error (as well as an archaic form) along the comparison with "humour". Spelling is illogical sometimes. If you read the discussion I referred you to it should all become clear. --Guinnog 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that spelling can be quite illogical. :) Firstly, I remain unconvinced of 'humorous' being the 'worldwide' spelling. Could you please provide a source? Secondly, in the discussion that you linked me to, 'humourous' is given on Wiktionary as an acceptable alternative (marked as being UK, but not 'archaic'... There's a joke to be made in there somewhere...). Thirdly, in Cane Toad, the spelling is Australian English, (eg. centimetre, humour, fertilisers, colouring.) For style, I feel that it's inconsistent to have something being 'humorous', and then later, to talk about 'Australian humour'. - Malkinann 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Malkinann, I think Guinnog is right. Wikitionary, like Wikipedia, can have mistakes, and for some reason this one hasn't been cleared up. I use the Maquarie Dictionary for Australian spelling, but unfortunately can't find it at the moment. I looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English, and it lists humorous as the correct spelling, with no mention of the alternative. Even though humour is spelt with the u, they must have decided it looks too clunky :). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Malkinann, like LiquidGhoul, I am a fellow Australian and I fully support your desire to use Australian English in Australian articles. However, I support Guinnog's view that "humorous" is the correct spelling. I use Mirriam Webster online and offline, the current Australian Oxford Dictionary. The spelling "humourous" is not even listed as an alternative spelling. It actually isn't listed in any of my < than 10-year-old dictionaries. At work I use the Australian News Limited Style Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers and it specifically states to use "humorous," not "humourous". I have several editions of the guide and they all say to use Australian English and list "humorous" as the correct spelling. I think "humourous" is an old British spelling and it is true that some people in Australia still use it and you can find it in some old dictionaries, but I think it is incorrect to claim it is Australian spelling.

:I believe Guinnog is correct to change the spelling to humorous to be consistent with modern Australian spelling conventions. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:P.S. I would strongly caution you against using Wiktionary as a reliable dictionary. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's humourous... Someone had better tell the Sydney Morning Herald, then. - Malkinann 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Feel free. No paper dictionary that I know of lists it as being current in the modern era. This is the trouble with relying on the likes of Wiktionary or Dictionary.com for info... --Guinnog 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed. The Sydney Morning Herald website has 27 hits for "humourous" [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=humourous+site%3Awww.smh.com.au%2F&btnG=Search&meta=] and 614 hits for "humorous" [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=humorous+site%3Awww.smh.com.au%2F&btnG=Search&meta=]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you live in Scotland and hope you may have some insight into some naming issues. The article in question is Red Deer and I understand there are perhaps 300,000 of these animals in Scotland...though I don't know if you know much about them. Bascially, there are somewhere between over twenty and maybe as few as 7 subspecies of these animals. Now outside of far eastern Asia and North America, the animal that is referred to as Red Deer is called an Elk or even "Wapiti". The Elk are much larger than and have different appearances and behavior than their cousins. I understand that what Europeans call an "Elk" is what we call a Moose. Basically, I am trying to find out what Scotlanders call the beast...do you use the term Red Deer or do you also call it an Elk? There has been discussion off and on for over a year about whether the article should be split in two since the animals have also recently been identified as having distinct enough DNA to be considered two species... [http://www.wzw.tum.de/wildbio/paper/cerphyl.pdf#search=%22Barbary%20red%20deer%22 see page 12]...though biologists have yet to make this determination officially. I am inclined to have an appropriate disambiguation page (one already exists at Elk) and then two seperate articles that detail the two individually, but wanted some feedback from someone that could possibly assist in the naming issue. If you're not interested, no problem.--MONGO 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good picture. There is an ongoing discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Deer#Elk here] if you feel so inclined. I think we may end up with two articles and I will use your image (or you can of course) in the article on Red Deer.--MONGO 08:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again...there are "new" things being discovered all the time. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html]--MONGO 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog, liquidGhoul suggested a few people should keep an eye on the Ubuntu (Linux distribution) article while I try to edit it, to make sure nobody (including me) steps out of line. I think it's a good idea. Will you keep an eye? Cheers, User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out... Tyrenius 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Mr G. No need to apologise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would welcome your input here: Talk:Volkstaat#Flaws_section

Thanks! --WickedHorse 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The trump vandal went on to do Charles Darwin - think he needs another hint? SatuSuro 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for that - ( my late father was born in kelso, so I oft used to hear my late mother have a go at the saft lowland brogue!) but like the oz flag on your wish list, the scottish should be on mine when i resurrect it SatuSuro 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

G'day Guinnog. Thank you for your expression of sympathy yesterday on my Talk page. Gordon | Talk, 17 October 2006 @14:28 UTC

:You're very welcome Gordon. --Guinnog 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no policy dictating I must have an edit summary. Stop being so anony-phobic. --84.64.51.100 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter why I did or didn't. Just don't revert things automatically. You're obviously one of those bloody Anti-Vandal Leaguers or whatever than prowls the Recent Changes list. If you read the introduction to the article, it reads much smoother without that sentence. --84.64.51.100 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, throwing templates at me now are you? Well I invite you to go ahead and block me if you think it'll do any good. My WikiGnomic contributions count for naught in the face of tyranically anti-vandal administrators who jump at the first sight of an anonymous editor. This is what really makes me sick about Wikipedia, you know. --84.64.51.100 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, you appear to be inviting me into a debate about it, so I'll begin. The introduction of an article should be a couple of sentences that introduce the topic, right? As it stands, the introduction on the euro states it is a currency, it is used by these many countries, Slovenia will join the list in 2007, and it is used by this many people. Now, upon reading that sentence on Slovenia, I suspected it had been wantonly inserted by an editor keen to inject as much info as possible, or maybe just on the subject of Slovenia's entry to the Eurozone (I note that a similar sentence appears in the box on the right, probably inserted by the same editor). It interrupts the flow, and is not wholly relevant. Any number of countries could be waiting to join the Eurozone - and they are - so should we list them there? No; that's what the Eurozone article is for. Which is why I removed the sentence, and joined up the remainder. So now the intro reads that the euro is a currency, it is used by these many countries, and it is used by this many people. A short, succint, statement of the facts, unfettered by needless information that is better off elsewhere.

:::And you want me to stick all that in an edit summary? I assumed common sense would suffice. --84.64.51.100 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shetland&action=history. --Mais oui! 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:No it was not. Please look not only at the times, but at the dates. 3RR applies to a 24 hr period.--Mais oui! 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::"Edit warring"!?! You are talking to the wrong party: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mallimak]. I have been subjected to a preposterous level of consistent, sustained, targetted personal abuse from that account and its myriad socks. When on earth is the Wikipedia community going to act? It is getting quite beyond a joke. --Mais oui! 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::And have a look at the edit histories of his countless socks: :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. --Mais oui! 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, is a 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shetland&curid=28916&diff=82091404&oldid=82084706]. --Mais oui! 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your best wishes. May I comment on your message:

• "I am concerned that you are not necessarily dealing with your conflict with the user in the most productive way." - suggestions please, because I have tried everything I can think of, and yet he is still allowed to continue his campaign via his ever-changing IP addresses - it is up to the Admins in my opinion, but they do not seem remotely interested...
• "I know your history and it might be better not to have anything to do with this user, though I recognise that may be difficult" - just have a quick look at the History of the Shetland article: you will see that Mallimak's sock pitched up at that article only hours after I had made an edit to it; same with the CFD (except that one was only minutes). You would rather be better telling Mallimak "not to have anything to do with" me. I would strongly welcome such a surprising development. --Mais oui! 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:No, you have not "blocked the other user you were edit-warring with": you have blocked a throw-away IP sockpuppet, not the actual User. "Beyond that I don't know what you would expect me to do." - that is OK: none of the other Admins know either, and I sure as heck don't, so you are in very good company! :) --Mais oui! 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sending this to you since you wrote my welcome as a new user last month. User 209.124.189.39 seems to have some sort of automated process that's arbitrarily changing/rearranging many, many names in category boxes, breaking links to birth/death years in some cases. Please alert the Proper Authorities, if there are such. --CliffC 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

: You mean like this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_de_Gaulle&diff=prev&oldid=82110637] I think they are just tightening up category listings, so that the category will display its contents in alphabetical order. Let me know if you have any specific concerns. --Guinnog 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Sorry to raise a false alarm; this seemed (and still does) an ambitious undertaking for an anonymous user. I noticed the activity when the categories for Nicole duFresne got changed to DuFresne, not her real name. Then I saw the diacriticals removed from such names as Guillermo Gómez Rivera and others. I see now that these names do indeed display properly in the actual category listings. I'm a little surprised that instead of changing the category name-sorting mechanism, they are changing the data going into it and leaving (to those not in the know) apparently misspelled versions of the name behind in the source articles. --CliffC 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::: I have copied the above paragraph as a suggestion to user Afasmit, with the comment "In the absence of any explanation at the time of the change, such changes will confuse and discourage those watching a favorite article trying to keep the facts - and spelling - correct." --CliffC 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, in response to your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka:

how do the several non-trivial edits made on 24 December 2005 to Elonka Dunin fit in with "I try very hard to be mindful of WP:AUTO" just below? As an admin you would be expected to enforce policy and this is very worrying in a candidate. Sorry, as you are undoubtedly a great editor and a genuinely interesting person of the type we need more of. ''

: Fair question, let me try and give a thorough answer: Basically, in late 2005, I was still a very new editor and learning the ropes. :) My use of Wikipedia was mostly as a reader at that time, and I had fewer than 50 edits. But I had noticed that my name and website were showing up in multiple Wikipedia articles as a cited source. Then in mid November 2005, while attending a trade conference in California, I met Wikipedia administrator {{user|Zippy}} who was giving a talk on Wikipedia at the show. I told him about my name showing up in Wikipedia articles, and he created the Elonka Dunin stub, which he encouraged me to flesh out.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&oldid=28339163].

: At the time, all I did was fix a broken link that he'd added, and add further sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=28342178&oldid=28339585], as a resource for him or anyone else who wanted to expand it. A month later though, on December 12, I saw that the article had been nominated for deletion since there still wasn't much info there [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elonka_Dunin]. Since no one else had touched it yet, I went ahead and expanded it when I had some time during the Christmas holidays, in an attempt to resolve some of the concerns in the AfD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=next&oldid=31021784] My green-ness as an editor is obvious in the edits, such as that I was unaware of the "What links here" link in the menu bar, and I made a clumsy section entitled "Other Wikipedia Articles Which Reference Elonka Dunin" (blush) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=32639613&oldid=31021784].

: In any case, it was during that deletion discussion that I learned of WP:AUTO, which I definitely read closely! After I'd read up more on Wikipedia policies, I returned to my bio and removed some elements which I agreed were "original research" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=next&oldid=32583954] In short, I agree that by today's standards, I made some bad edits in December 2005, but please realize that it was at a time when I was unaware of Wikipedia guidelines. I hope that I have improved my knowledge of Wikipedia policies since then, and that you will not hold some "newbie mistakes" from last year against me. :) --Elonka 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka: In the light of my changed vote I reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination) and I think it shows poor judgement in late July as well as editing contrary to WP:AUTO last December. At the same time I am deeply sorry to have to oppose for this one thing and, rather than discuss on the project page I thought I would open a thread here on it. Elonka, do you think it would have been wise to mention this in your answer to question 3 and/or mend fences with Danny? --Guinnog 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

: Ah, the reason I did not add the Danny AfD to question #3, was because it didn't qualify as one of the top "things that have caused me stress on Wikipedia." ;) Given the scope of my interactions with miscellaneous editors on Wikipedia, to be honest, that AfD didn't even make my top 10, so it didn't seem appropriate to include (I felt that my answer to Q3 was already getting long enough!). There also just wasn't much to answer about "how I dealt with it" on that incident. The timeline was basically this:

:* On July 21, {{user|Danny}} had speedy-deleted the Musa Cooper article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Musa_Cooper]. This action was disputed, and brought up at Deletion Review [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_22&oldid=66173526].

:* At the time, to be honest, I'd never heard of Danny. I just ran across the Deletion Review discussion by chance, and offered my opinion in a routine manner, which was that the speedy-deletion was inappropriate and should be overturned. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_July_22&diff=65285693&oldid=65284916]. My post was on July 22 at 23:19.

:*Within an hour, at 00:22, Danny had posted in the discussion as well, expressing, erm, strong concerns ("This is insane") that the article should be kept deleted. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_22&diff=next&oldid=65288956].

:*A few minutes later, Danny's very next edit was to nominate my "Elonka Dunin" article for deletion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060723173517&limit=20&target=Danny][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=prev&oldid=65298376].

:*I posted my concerns about it being a bad faith nomination in the AfD discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FElonka_Dunin_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=65315690&oldid=65315623], and left it alone after that.

:* The AfD was then closed on July 28 with a very strong "keep." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elonka_Dunin_%282nd_nomination%29&oldid=66289859]

: If such a thing happened again, I'd probably handle it the same way, posting my view of the situation, and then letting the Wikipedia community debate the issue from there on. As for my view of Danny, I'd really regarded the matter as closed. He and I have been on the same side in a few other speedy-deletion/vandalism questions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj_Nematollah&diff=prev&oldid=77961267][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ostad_Elahi&diff=prev&oldid=77961327], but other than that, to my knowledge we really haven't had any other contact. I'm sorry he feels it necessary to oppose my admin nomination, as I don't believe that I've done anything to show that I would use the tools irresponsibly. But, he has a right to his opinion, even if I disagree with it. :) --Elonka 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(copying) Commiserations and please keep contributing. Best wishes, --Guinnog 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks, I very much appreciate your comments. And yes, I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and plan to continue contributing, without interruption. :) Thanks again, --Elonka 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help maintaining my user and talk pages over the last few days. Always appreciated. Best, Gwernol 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:You're welcome! Know you'd do the same for me, and have done. --Guinnog 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! We at WikiProject Guitarists have noticed that you have an interest in editing guitar-related articles (Gibson Les Paul for example) and I'd like to extend a friendly invitation to join our project. We are solely focused on improving guitarist and guitar equipment articles. If you are interested, add yourself to our member list. Our main project page has some ideas of things to do if you are looking (because, you know, admins have TONS of free time). --Aguerriero (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You recently added a test3 (3rd level) warning to the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dastardly Dastardly]

's talk page. This should be used only when vandalism is obvious. In this case I think it is quite dubious. He posted a link to a non-hearts related site. He is also a first time user. A warning for spamming would be more appropriate. Please change the warning to the spam0 tag. Thanks. Snowbound 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:No, I stand by my original judgement that this was blatant vandalism. Here is the user's one and only edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heart_of_Midlothian_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=81765096]. Please get back to me if you still disagree with my judgement after reviewing the diff. --Guinnog 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mr G! Very much appreciated. :) It was my pleasure to help out, anytime. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive response. :) BTW, did you have any other questions or concerns that I could address, per the RfA? I am also open to any constructive criticism that you might have, as to how I might further improve. --Elonka 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I mind, that was a hilarious comment. Thanks for brightening my day. Gwernol 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guinnog. I edited the David Irving introductory paragraph, only to have you revert it as unsourced. I have no objection in principle, but the two basic changes I made seemed, to me, to be in the interests of balance, and I am not sure why the revert. For instance the present opening paragraph says that Irving has written "several" books, when 25 of his titles are listed lower down the page. The use of the word "several" appears, either by design, or by poor use of language, to diminish the extent of Irving's work. I don't mean to defend his views, but whatever a person's views, it seems to me, the sheer scale of effort, regardless of his conclusions, should be accurately represented.

The second change was to the component stating,"...and is most famous for Holocaust denial." That does not read as a balanced introduction to a serious article. I tried to put the accusation of Holocaust denial into context by adding that his views had been highlighted as a result of his own legal action against Deborah Lipstdat.

I feel fairly sure that the replacement of the word "several" was a good one, and while I am not so sure about the second change, I am sure that the bald statement "... is most famous for Holocaust denial" does not come across as a considered observation.

What do you think?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.162 (talk • contribs)

: Your reply seems reasonable to me. I had inserted the word 'notorious' simply to see if it would be reverted. I didn't understand why or how my previous edits had dissappeared so quickly... I'll have another go, and use the discussion page as you suggested.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.162 (talk • contribs)

Trust me, wasn't easy! Appreciated :) Glen 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've noticed that one of your userboxes says that you've made just over 18800 edits since Oct. 12, 2006. It's just strikes me odd that you've made so many edits in the past two weeks where as I've been on Wikipedia for several months (June 20, 2006) and have only made around 2700 edits. I'm just curious, but is it an error or something?

P.S. - You can reply here if you wish. --Sasuke-kun27 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:It says that's his edit count as of October 12, not since. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oh...My apologies (That's kind of embarassing...^^) Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. --Sasuke-kun27 01:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Guinnog. I must say, when I saw the query, I did a double take. I know you're a prolific editor, but I didn't realise you were a bot! I mean, come on! 18,000 edits in a week??? Very impressive, my friend. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sliven-thracianlowlands-dinev-flickr.jpg

Hey Guinnog, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, probably I deleted to many of the wiki links for the dates. :-) I think I misunderstood what the convention is after I saw a page with a bunch of dates unlinked. I guess it was just the years though. Anyway, one of these days I should read some rules. cya. Taalo 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog.

Thanks for your comments.

Looking at the Map in Thomas: Scotland, Vol 6, The Lowlands and the Borders, there is another branch line nearby: Carstairs to Dolphinton, which appears to be an end-to end link with the NB's Leadburn, Linton & Dolphinton Railway.

What if you move your section heading back to where it was, then you can put your new Edinburgh & Lothian articles in to it. If you like, you could leave the Symington, Bigger and Broughton were I put it, with a new title ... Branches, and the Leadburn branch could added to this section.

Best regards Pyrotec 11:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have done a bunch of recent editing of United Airlines flight 232, so I hope you're the right person to ask. I'm confused by the apparent discrepancy of reported airspeeds in the 'Chronology of the flight' section. Do you think this is an error? I'd appreciate your response.

Though I now be, I admit, somewhat frivolishizzle, were I minded to be belicose, I would take great exception to any plans to to eliminate the subjunctive in English - [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_UK_spelling_campaign] - why would anyone oppose this interesting fossilised form?
Umm. Ooops. I now am, as it were, unable to find how you were linked to all that. That I had done more research...
--Shirt58 11:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

: Got your message - thanks! I'll address it on my User:talk, since yours is so crowded. (Hidden agenda: And mine's so sparse :-( )--Shirt58 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate. Yeah I kind of had a felling it would be controversial. Not legal to have it in the article is it. Mmm. As you say it is a shame I really think it is important to the Concorde article and history -great picture of a monumental event in Concorde's history although a sombre one. Oh well. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I may be some time. Kinda busy at present. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:No bother. At the leasyt, I'll try and get some pictures this week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol and Guinnog - I have been working on the railways around Crieff and Callander - see Dunblane, Doune & Callander Railway, Callander and Oban Railway, etc. I prefer this setup and using the disused railway box for the stations. Look at what I have done to Dunblane. It is still open, but I have added a bit about the Dunblane, Doune and Callander Railway and the Disused Railway box. The Glasgow Central Railway is another example, especially as the central core was reopened in 1979.

Stewart 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This graphic appears to be correct to me.

Stewart 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Are you sure about the Powderhall branch still being in use. Look at the Meadowbank Stadium picture. Scaffolding under the bridge for both lines. It could be that I have incorrectly identified the line. Which road was the overbridge on that you took the picture from? Stewart 22:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

:To my mind :Image:Oct06easterroadrailways-025.jpg has Meadowbank Statium to the right and Marionville Road in the background. However you took the pictures so you have more recent experience than myself. My 1987 edition of Quail Rail Mays shows double track (with single lead junctions between Craigentinny and Abbeyhill Junctions. The single line to Leith Walk (Powderhall Branch) was connected via a triangular junction at Lochend Junction (Meadowbank was between this junction and Craigentinny) and London Road Junction on the double track, meeting up at Easter Road Junction. By the 1996 (3rd edition) Quail Map, only a single track is shown from what is now called Powderhall Branch Junction (previously Craigentinny) to the Powderhall Compaction Plant.

:I do not have a large scale map of the area from the 1980's to check the relative postion of Easter Road Station

:My Jowett's Railway atlas shows Peirshill (Peirshill Junction appears to be what is now called Powderhall Branch Junction) at about the same postion as Meadowbank. Lochend Junction was a three way junction - North to Leith Central, via Easter Road; North West to Granton via Leith Walk and Powderhall; and West to Abbeyhill Station and then Junction (London Road Junction not named) Stewart 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::When I took the picture I was on the old rails beside the platform of Abbeyhill Station. The bridge in the background is London Road. --Guinnog 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Our edits crossed - I would agree that :Image:Oct06easterroadrailways-025.jpg is Abbeyhill Station. Any chance of some pictures of Meadowbank Station, and the tracks around London Road, Loanhead, and Easter Road Junctions to bring into to context the picture you have provided so far. I think we are looking at an article on the North Britsh Leith Central line here. Stewart 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, I see what you mean. The building on the right is a rather hideous block of flats that has appeared there in the last few years, and the overbridge is definitely London Rd. Interestingly the trackbed of the remaining Powderhall branch looks awfully broad. I think it may have been doubled previously. Do you know? I'm definitely up for helping with the article. Great idea. --Guinnog 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::[http://www.railscot.co.uk/Edinburgh_Leith_and_Newhaven_Railway/frame.htm Railscot] provides the chronology. Stewart 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, and my copy of Edinburgh's Railways by Smith and Anderson has some good info as well. --Guinnog 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, G. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the section Sepp_Kerschbaumer#Rolle_Kerschbaumers_in_der_j.C3.BCngeren_Geschichte_S.C3.BCdtirols to be translated? It looks a bit like original research to me. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like you're using both names, which seems a fair solution to me. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As you have been a major contributor, I was wondering what you think of what I've been doing at List of winners of Unofficial Football World Championships. Kevin McE 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent copy-edit. TimVickers 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::As "influenzavirus A" isn't a species name like Leishmania major I don't think it has to be capitalised. Did you want to make any comment on the FAC review page? TimVickers 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why you reverted my addition of Goodbye Jimmy (2006) without discussion? I've reinstated it. This is a one-act play completed on October 11th 2006 and first performed at Oran Mor October 16th 2006 as part of the Play, a Pie and a Pint programme. Please do not remove the work of other contributors (other than obvious vandalism) without discussion.FrFintonStack 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm sorry I reverted out your good-faith addition. I see you were not logged in when you made both edits, but contributing as User:86.0.203.120. This, and the unsourced nature of your contribution, influenced my decision to revert it. If you remember to log in, provide an edit summary, and/or raise it in talk, you will increase the likelihood of your contributions being taken seriously. --Guinnog 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work there! Just a few comments:

1. The green shade of the trunk roads is the first thing that grabs your attention, not the railways!
2. For the current map: there is no longer a junction on the ECML at Abbeyhill leading down toward Powderhall. The justion is long lifted and what tracks remain (in some places only one rail) are useless ([http://www.pbase.com/wangi/abbeyhill_easterroad])
3. For the historic map:
4. Just north of Scotland Street, on the site now occupied by Tesco, was Herriot Hill Goods (see [http://edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_map_edinburgh_1915_edinburgh_north_large.htm#start])
5. What's now Brunstane was Joppa (along with the station on the mainline)
6. Shouldn't Princes St station be slightly north, or the Haymarket-Waverley tunnel slightly south? As it is it looks like the station was a junction (see [http://edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_map_edinburgh_1870_large.htm#start]) there was also a goods station where the Exchange is now / end of the West Approach.
7. South Leith was two stations, one Caley, one NBR (see [http://edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_map_edinburgh_1915_edinburgh_north-east_large.htm#start])

Thanks again! /wangi 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out by reverting User:Jooler's edits! —Mets501 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Jooler was fixing Mets' improper move (he closed the RM 7-4 in favour of the move, while ignoring 4 votes that met even Mets' idiosyncratic arguments for rejecting opinions). Mets also improperly move-protected the page, and said, in effect, screw all of you, I Will Not Be Moved in this close.

Mets' issue of a "warning" was bogus - Jooler was correcting Mets' mistake. The threats for removing the warnings were also incorrect - you aren't allowed to block for removing warnings, you most certainly aren't allowed to block for removing bogus warnings. I spoke to Mets' gave him half an hour to undo his "mistakes"... he refused, even after I informed him that he was blocking for a non-existant offense. We were all new admins once, but if someone blocks improperly and then refuses to budge when he is corrected by a more experienced editor, is clearly not suited to be an admin. Guettarda 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:Why are you edit-warring with Jooler over his user page? It's normal practice to leave people alone there. Guettarda 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology acepted. I understand you reasons for reverting my changes- I have to admit to making those changes whilse slightly confuesd due to excess of alcohol. I thought I was following instructions. but he meant double-redirects not ordinary redirects. Jooler 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see from your userpage you live in Scotland; which region is it; as I'd appreciate some help with writing Scottish-related articles! --SunStar Net 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::I was going to add place-name definitions for every Scottish town article; since you said on my talk page you live in Edinburgh I could probably add some info to the regions around it (e.g. Craigmillar, Pumpherston etc.)

I'm just wondering if we need a consensus to include this information!

I've also had a look through your contributions; you've got a well-rounded portfolio there! --SunStar Net 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion mentioned above I've just added to the talk page of WikiProject Scotland; ask the other members for their opinions! SunStar Net 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'll do the railway articles too; looks like I'll have to drag out a few textbooks from the library at LJMU! --SunStar Net 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks! Would you be able to help me get Scottish Borders to good article status?? SunStar Net 11:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Sping forward, fall back" - but it happens to be spring here in Australia ;-). Does daylight saving end in Scotland tonight? Cheers. --Merbabu 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problems, I hadn't got round to brightening up the images, I only got back on Wednesday (and have been a tad ill since), thanks for that, DannyM 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Scottish Borders article we should have an infobox for the list of towns, rather than a list itself!

I'll add the data for redlinked towns, you can help me if you want! SunStar Net 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

::As for the tag on my page, it was a subst'ed template implying I am a non-notable individual... SunStar Net 14:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No I don't mind at all. Maybe it can be added to the apache gallery in the commons. By the way, thanks for telling me. --F3rn4nd0 20px 15:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually dont remember creating this page. I may have merged with another page to create this one.Dineshkannambadi 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have received a new threat from User:Rebecca (perhaps first hiding behind another user name, but now in the open). Please see my talk page. Help please. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly the case - he's simply resumed spending virtually all his time on Wikipedia delinking, and removing every link in virtually every article he hits, as he always did. I respect the differences of opinion on this matter - I'm not going around relinking pages that weren't linked in the first place, and I'm not going to go around hunting out people who come across the occasional useless link and kill it. What I will do is take on those, like Hmains, who have a particular stylistic fetish and will do anything to impose it on the rest of the project, anyone else be damned. If he wants to make edits of the nature he is making, he needs to get a consensus to do it, not persist in running an automated script in the face of continual controversy. Rebecca 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:If I may chip in, the script mostly removes links to specific years, e.g. 1921 -> 1921, which I believe there is a consensus for; however, it also seems to remove some more useful links, e.g. "oriental" and "first world war" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgrade&diff=prev&oldid=84508772 this diff]. I strongly suggest some discussion on what this script should be allowed to do. - User:Samsara (talk{{·}} contribs) 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:User:Lonewolf BC, who was the first complainant, has been a fairly active user for about two months. Given previous interaction with Rebecca, it seems she would rather directly, erm, speak her mind about fellow editors than use socks. - User:Samsara (talk{{·}} contribs) 11:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you for your thoughtful response, Guinnog. I have no problem in principle with either your a, b, or c, although we may differ on some of those individual cases. These all seem like perfectly sensible usages of making links relevant to the context. What I have a problem with is spending all ones time expunging each and every date link one sees because one doesn't like date links in general. This is what Hmains is doing - and yes, he is using an automated script (User:Hmains/monobook.js - the same script Bobblewik used to use). Really, I'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!".

::As for a broader solution, it'd suffice for a start if the likes of Hmains would actually return to the negotiating table rather than trying to enforce their solution by brute force. Ultimately, given the last round of discussions, I'm inclined to think the only solution capable of achieving consensus from both sides is that used for BC/BCE and all other similar issues - don't go around mass-linking, don't go around mass-delinking. This has in essence been adopted by just about all the other parties to that dispute in the months since that discussion, with the exception of the periodic outbreaks from Bobblewik and Hmains. Rebecca 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Here we go again. I'm not stalking you but you seem to pop up on talk pages that are on my watchlist. You say "you'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!"" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more constructive for you to revert only those dates you think should be linked, not a mass revert. It seems to me that leading by example and teaching people which dates are acceptable to revert would be the better route. It is clear that just mass reverting people will cause friction and nothing is learned. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the offer, but I haven't read the book yet! Think I'll avoid that page for a while!

Sorry

Mdcollins1984 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm asking you this question because you wrote my welcome. Is there some automated way for the administrators to remove all the commercial links placed by user 217.34.45.39 and others like him? Perhaps there is a robot that can remove all links to a particular commercial site? I removed a few of his spammings this morning but I don't have the time or patience to do them all (or risk possibly get into a war with someone whose motivations are commercial and thus probably stronger). One particularly egregious example of this user's many "contributions" can be found in Helmut Kohl. --CliffC 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Guinnog, thanks for taking care of 217.34.45.39, and for the advice. The next one I'll do myself. Guys like this are a real pain, and a waste of time. Any thoughts on automated removal of a particular link wherever it's found? Can wiki do this? --CliffC 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After extensive discussion, a compromise has been reached-I can put what I want on my userpage, provided I agree to a disclaimer stating that my views do not reflect those of the community. The disclaimer is prominently displayed, as is the content I see fit to put on my userpage. Thanks for your concern, but like I said the matter has already been resolved. Cerebral Warrior 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:As I have already mentioned, the matter has been resolved already. Now, please let me return to editing instead of repeatedly questioning me about my userpage. Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice you reverted my edit re San Seriffe

:For the purposes of American publication, Fraser created a fictional entry of the 1909 edition of Who's Who. This lists Flashman's laurels as: VC, KCB, KCIE; Chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur; Congressional Medal of Honor; San Serafino Order of Purity and Truth, 4th Class.

I thought the first US edition was later 1970s but might be wrong. Any idea?

BrainyBabe 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:You're quite welcome. Sharkface217 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. yandman 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The script is part of the problem, but it's not all of it, as one can still manually strip each and every article of its date links regardless of their merits. If Hmains stuck to the examples you mentioned, actually judging each case on its merits, I'd be unlikely to have any concerns about his editing. I won't promise to stop reverting his edits until he can prove he is actually capable of doing so, but if he stops the shoot-on-sight mentality, I can't see any reason why I'd need to revert him at all. Rebecca 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to follow your suggestion. The trouble is that Rebecca will never agree with any of your suggestons or similar ones made by other administrators and no one does anything about it. She had stated repeatedly that she will revert all delinking of dates no matter what anyone says. Will you do anything about it? Hmains 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:See User talk:Rebecca#Date linking yet again --Guinnog 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

: ok; thanks for a beginning. Hmains 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not understand the reason behind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Botanic_Gardens_railway_station&curid=7125352&diff=85028947&oldid=82937601 this edit] to Botanic Gardens railway station. This is tagged as Typo fixing but all that appears to have happened is a reordering of items which does not appear to have had any effect on the article as displayed -- Stewart 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

==Virtual restraining order requested==

have a recurring problem with Clintonesque partly because I reverted his first edit in Fallujah, due to the deletion of sourced text. From there on he has been completely uncivil, has openly accused me of hypocrisy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freepsbane&diff=84759704&oldid=84106088]without an form of provocation. Furthermore in Fallujah’s article page he has made an excessive amount of reverts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallujah&action=history] and has seemingly claimed the article as his own, hostilely accosting any editor that opposes his view. Due to his personal attacks and 3rr violation I had placed a warning tag in his talk page, however now he places completely inappropriate pseudo-warnings on my page that are not official templates, but instead inserted spliced together text messages that come of as far more confrontational than a template. But look as one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freepsbane&diff=84977820&oldid=84972551], Falsely accusing me of policy violations such as 3RR which I have come nowhere near violating (my greatest revert count for the any day being two edits on the same article.) and then placing warning tags accusing me of improperly removing the false warnings. Threatening me with vague consequences when I do so with such hostile phrases such as “This is your last warning” I have been an active Wikipedia user now for close to half a year and have overall gone about constructive edits, but this Wikistalking from a new user with a record of only POV edits is disrupting my normal Wikipedia habits; I found it difficult to work on a constructive expansion on the history of the Syrian desert while being badgered by harassing messages from him. I request that you take some action to stop the vandalism of my talk page, such as temporarily protecting my talk page. And that some action be taken to prevent his harassing edits. Thank you for taking the time to read this post.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepsbane (talk • contribs)

Hi. Freepsbane asked me to look at your interactions with him and I see they have been less than cordial. The solution I propose is that both of you:

1. Refrain from editing each others' talk pages for a month. Instead you may commmunicate through me, or any other admin who wants to get involved. This should be easy if you also both agree to
2. Discuss any proposed changes in articles you have both edited in talk first and obtain consensus for those changes
3. Refrain from edit-warring over the Fallujah article. I'd like you both to observe WP:1RR on that article please

Do you accept? I'm copying this to him as well. All the best, --Guinnog 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions for resolving this are acceptable to me. Than you for your fair handling of this. Clintonesque 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this issue. When you consider this problem resolved (probably pending the response of Freepsbane) I would request you to unprotect the Fallujah article. I originally asked for and was granted Full Protection because of the Edit War and the failure to discuss changes on the talk page. Observing WP:1RR will complete the corrective actions needed. Cheers.--Burzum 06:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've only just finished sorting out the CerebralWarrior mess (by the way I apologise for having made a compromise with him, I didn't know the consensus was so strongly against it), and now this comes up... Take a look at his contribs and the history of his talk page (blanked sockpuppet allegations). I think this user has something against the EU and is out to make a point. He's modified dozens of pages, and I fear that cleaning this up may take time. What's your opinion? yandman 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You perhaps mean the sockpuppet allegations which the author subsequently (and immediately) struck out himslef? I have zero against the EU. My point is that those maps were a) non-standard b) potentially POV and c) had not generated any sort of discussion or consensus before being posted. Please assume good faith in future. Many thanks. JamesAVD 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Are you talking to me? If not, perhaps your message is better addressed to Yardman. --Guinnog 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry. Have done. JamesAVD 12:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to check if Sarah and Guinnog are actually socks. They turn up on each others talk pages a lot and seem to agree a lot too. See, for instance ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_sockpuppet_.E2.80.93_User:Centauri] (KIDDING!) ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A Google Web Alert that I've had set for a few weeks

Google Web Alert for: "luis de la reguera"|"fernandez de la reguera"

just went off and pointed to the User page I set up, also a few weeks ago, to develop a new article about this subject. The link that Google sent out was

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CliffC/Luis_Fernandez_de_la_Reguera", but since then the page contains a completely different subject.

Should Wikipedia open user pages to Google's robots? That particular page (for example) is always a work in progress, and anyone who visits it from a Google link will probably be dismayed and/or confused. I've added a {{userpage}} tag to the page, but all in all this seems like a bad idea. --CliffC 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog, and thanks for your timely request(s) for Lar and I to stop. As to the stalking issue, well I'm sure everyone will make up their own mind (as Lar already has, apparently). RoscoHead 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:You're very welcome. Just leave him alone for a while I think. There are plenty of other things to get on with that will contribute positively. In my case, sleep! --Guinnog 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds fair to me. One way to get things moving along might be asking Hmains to justify the reasons for his most recent batch of edits. Many of these seemed to me to be unlikely candidates for delinking, particularly as most were of a historical nature, where there is a fair argument that they provide useful context. It thus seemed to me like Hmains was trying to shift the argument from "all date links must die!" to "I don't think this particularly date link is useful", but behaving in exactly the same manner - he doesn't seem to think any such link is useful, and behaves accordingly. Rebecca 03:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Durin&curid=4637652&diff=85429822&oldid=85428270]: Thanks for picking that up. I'm trying to convince this vandal to act in appropriate ways. But, I fear he will continue as before. His writing style in his personal attacks is actually quite humorous. I wish his creative efforts were directed towards positive efforts rather than negative ones. C'est la vie. --Durin 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:You're very welcome. --Guinnog 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

hi -- i apologise for accusing you of censorship. yr points are all correct and i've been over-sensitive. cheers. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

:No problem. --Guinnog 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't deleting - I was moving your comment and then responding to it. The lag from the responding part made it appear as if I deleted your comment. That's all. crazyeddie 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment addressed who the burden-of-proof should be on. I started to add your blanket vote to the proceedings, then decided it was a bad idea. Could you give a closer look? One of the purposes of this proposal is to take a more nuanced look at the problem.... (By the way, your comment was moved to here) crazyeddie 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Making someone feel important is not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, I think the point will be made just how many people disagree with him. In turn, this might give an indication just how many people are looking for him to screw up again so they can haul him before ArbCom... crazyeddie 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there is a simple majority against it. But the rules I cooked up did specify a 2/3rds against before we forced CW to remove something. Since this procedure of mine is completely ad hoc, it is rather unenforcable. But if you want to buck it, I'm not sure what the next step would be - a real RfC? ArbCom?

Oh, and about that misspelling thing - I personally rather like it when idiots announce themselves. crazyeddie 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind blocking User:Skinuteam? He's tried to create an article about his company, Skinu 4 times in the past hour, and I'm sick of checking up on him every 5 minutes. I've given him ample warning for this, both on his talk page and on the talk pages of the various attempts. Ta very much. yandman 16:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no bother at all. Just put {{deleted}} on the otherwise empty page, and then protect it. See for example Bush is Hitler. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the subculture of people who use Wikipedia the way the rest of us use MySpace. So I’m looking to interview several Wikipedia “addicts” as well as people who, while they don’t consider themselves addicted, do spend a good amount of time on the site editing articles, patrolling for errors, seeking out false articles, fighting for changes they made to be kept in, and otherwise contributing to the site. If you are interested please email me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.

This offer is open to anybody else reading this, not just this particular user. But please, don’t come to me with if you’re hoping I’ll be exposing conspiracies or censorship issues amongst the wikipedia higher-ups. That’s not really what this article is about.

Thanks,

Brian68.39.158.205 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The heavy handed manner in which you deleted my external links left me with a really bad taste in my mouth regarding contributions. I'm a newbie, for sure, and I primarily spend my time building and writing my own website. But the pages to which I linked - mainly my own - were often as not better written and more thoroughly researched than the existing wiki. I was trying to share, and you called me a spammer - and treated me accordingly.

Even more, I am finding many links similar to (and/or less useful than) the ones you deleted - they were already there, and they remain as I write. Maybe I'm venting here, but I have to wonder if you even followed the links before you deleted them. --RandysRodeodotcom 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem on the reverts. Btw, do you know what happened to the WR templates? Did they dissapear after discussion or something? Chris Kreider 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

: I think they were the templates used to warn vandals who removed the warnings from there own user page. Maybye I had a bran lapse and forgot what they were. If you dont know anything, that is cool. Chris Kreider 15:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks!Chris Kreider 15:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marrow118&curid=7804568&diff=86053675&oldid=86052635], it's useful to get their attention. :-) - CobaltBlueTony 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in jumping in. I saw some of your excellent work to date. I'll get stuff into it soon. David D. (Talk) 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's getting tiring anyway now as you can my shortening post length. --Merbabu 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Latest: User talk:86.17.246.29. I dont' know that it is a problem. Any thoughts? I find it hard not to reply. --Merbabu 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hello mate u dropped me a message an i wann no how to send u a message back see you soon buddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The bellend (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:I have moved tis message from your userpage, mate. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:No worries. But I have a very long way to catch up to your maintenance of my pages! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's election day (8:30 am on the East coast) in the USA, and a brand-new user is changing the Jeanine Pirro article to indicate African descent and remove a link to a favorable NY Times article. I reverted it it once but now there's an anonymous user making changes as well. Can you lock this for the day (or until the polls close, haha) after reverting a ways back? I think Jeanine is a dope but right is right. I would guess there are other political figures on both sides of the aisle suffering dirty tricks at the moment. Not sure if you are in the right time zone for this... --CliffC 13:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I received your message[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freepsbane#You_and_User:Clintonesque] and I will be more than willing to follow your instructions. My apologies for the slow response, a real life strep infection kept me out for a bit. Once again thank you for your time. Freepsbane 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can return the thanks for the reverts to userpage vandalism! Thanks and keep up the good work. Chris Kreider 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog!

I also sent this this message to Zapptastic for discussion so I hope you don't mind a little copy and pasting!

I received a communication from you regarding the addition of various external links to MonologueSearch.com. I honestly want to have Monologue Search used as a source for monologues on the internet! It is totally free and I'd love to see it start getting more exposure. This site is something that the theatre community desperately needs. How would you suggest we link information about the individual authors to Wikipedia? We are getting new monologue contributions every day and I'm hoping that we will increase our membership base and consequently, our database strength. I want this to be available to everyone. That's the whole reason we're doing this. Please give me some advice about the appropriate way to go about this. I see links to poetry and plays on the pages of these authors but I haven't found much on monologues (for audition purposes). I feel like this is a good deed undone. Any response would be greatly appreciated!

~ Justin / iamwaggle >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iamwaggle Here's my Talk Page]

Posted at 10:28PM on November 7, 2006 PST

Also, here's a little quote from the guidelines for external links that I thought applied to this situation:

"Many sites are commercial in nature. Although this provides motive to spam them on wiki pages, there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy."

Hi. I had assumed that the 'cunt hair' was vandalism and rolled it back. As you will have noticed, I quickly realized that it was not vandalism and reverted my roll-back. Sorry! Bucketsofg 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Same thanks goes back to you! Chris Kreider 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put some new notes at the bottom of the discussion of Ad Hominem. Thanks again. - Jive

Out of curiosity, do you know whether this was taken in the city of Derry/Londonderry or elsewhere in the county? I noticed someone changing the caption used for it in Northern Ireland to say it was taken in "Londonderry." Since WP:MOS recommends referring to the city as "Derry" and the county as "Londonderry," I'm not 100% sure which is appropriate. For now, I'm assuming it was taken in the city. Best, FreplySpang 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks! FreplySpang 18:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guinnog...
I was wondering if it is possible to see the articles a certain template is used on. For example, I have a template I made at User:StonedChipmunk/Templates/FirstWarning and I was wondering if it is being used (and what pages it is used on). Alternatively (or in conjunction to this question), how do you check the contributions made by a certain user? --StonedChipmunk 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did edit it when I forgot to sign in, i probably make 5% of my edits while I'm not signed in, just quick stuff I remember etc. Thanks for the concern : ) Nick carson 11:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So much for that i before e rule. Thanks for catching my errors. SWoods 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rollback keeps beating out popups, and I end up reverting you by accident. Jeez. {{mono|1=:P}} – Chacor 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the vandalism reverts on my user page. I am popular - have you seen the latest WP:RfAr involving Steele and I? Fun... Best, Gwernol 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Funnily, RandysRodeodotcom has a half page in this month's Uncut. Strange dark forces are at work here, I'd guess. - Coil00 01:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:To be honest I took him at face value at the time, but yeah, as it turns out, it was spam. And no, we weren't mentioned in the magazine. - Coil00 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_Cara Tsar Bomba information

User talk:84.10.9.157 12:55, 11 November 2006

FYI. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutty-sark&diff=prev&oldid=87053109] --Guinnog 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

: Ah. Thanks for that. I did look at it for a few seconds, and it seemed like a typo. Now that I look at the overall article, it's obvious that the quote should be left alone. Sorry about that. Interesting article by the way: I'd heard of the ship of the same name, but I never knew the etymology of it, and never thought to look it up. Cheers, CmdrObot 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

G'day Mr Guinnog. I hope you didn't mind me making those edits to the sock page. I didn't really want to, but I feel it is becoming necessary to keep that going and up-to-date. I'm currently having problems with him trying to get Michael Ignatieff unprotected. So much for him leaving. 8-(Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage, too. I didn't even notice I'd been vandalised those last few times. Thanks mate. By the way, I think any doubt that IP is Ottawaman went out the window with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=87164217] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page again earlier. I just sent you an email, if you're still around. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Got your reply, thanks, G. I think I've fixed it now, thank goodness, but I'm still clueless as to what was causing the problem. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on 87.194.35.230 Jkvandeusen; moving pages to inappropriate names. See anaemia page now called C:// 89.240.114.89 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. Thank you for catching it. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guinnog... since you seem to be on me like the plague (and I mean that in a good way - I couldn't think of better wording) I thought you would be a good person to ask about this:
My roommate always adds stuff to his userpage - and by stuff I mean templates. When I am curious and go looking around things like controversial topics (it's fun to see what people are arguing about nowadays) I always find his userpage on this list. Recently the number of things on his user page has been reduced, but so far he's determined to keep things up there. The most recent change I made was deleted templates such as the UnderConstruction template (because he never edits his page anyways) and things like Controversial (because it's a userpage). I also added some userboxes and moved some words around (which is what the 8 edits or so are that I made recently), but that is not really relevant. Some other users have removed things like sProtected and Proposed Deletion notices. My main question is: is it good practice to place all these templates on a userpage? (Right now there are 3 or so templates.) If it isn't I would really appreciate it if you told him because he won't listen to me (even though he lives, like, 4 feet away from me ;) ). --StonedChipmunk 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Also, it'd be great if you could reply to this on my talk page. --StonedChipmunk 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::It's not really a harm, it's just that I'm not sure that having these templates on a userpage is helpful to Wikipedia. (He told me he also wants an admin's opinion.) --StonedChipmunk 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Let me put it this way: in your opinion, from 1 to 10, where 1 is delete and 10 is keep, what should be done with them? --StonedChipmunk 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that user Jeff.arthur has used this name for an image "TreeNymphButterfly-JeffArthur-Snappyphotos-co-uk.jpg‎" and has repeatedly put external links to his own website with advertised sales. I have reverted four edits, but an administrator's monitoring would probably be helpful. User probably needs advise. 89.240.125.189 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:I have put a factual message on his user talk page. 89.240.125.189 23:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - yes much better! On approach to Waverley you can actually see the points at the justion for the old branch down to Leith Central has been removed completely! Thanks/wangi 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and offers of help Guinnog. But I'm afraid even just popping in briefly for a private comment to someone generates so much nonsense, so I will just drop even trying to defend myself after a couple of goodbye posts. I have been accused of "disruption", "trolling", impersonation of others (I have no idea where that one came from), and even "vandalism" in one place. I hope Wikipedia will eventually fix itself, but I am obviously more than unwelcome to return here. I hope you keep up the good work and best of luck!--203.109.209.49 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (This IP is shared and not quite static, changes every few weeks, so please don't respond on the IP talk page)

:May I suggest that you "signed in" as a user instead of being user:203.109.209.49. Your very own user name will then have a "secret" password and your edits will not be confused with other peoples edits, who might use the same IP address. Your edits will always be recognised as yours no matter what the IP address is. I might be worth trying this, before you say "goodbuy" the wiki forever, as you appear to be keen to improve the wiki. 89.240.125.189 10:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Er, sorry, that was User:Konstable. I am no longer using that account as people seem to hate me using it so much that I am in the process of being banned for it, or something, I've lost track of the nonsense long ago.--203.109.209.49 11:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I knew that of course. I wish there was some way I could help you to sort out the mess. For my part, as I said to you in email, you were a great editor and a great admin, and I would definitely take account of that in understanding whatever difficulties you are having with the project just now. If you want a suggestion, why not take an actual wikibreak until things are easier for you? I think what you are doing just now is only going to annoy people more and make it harder for you to come back and/or resume your adminship duties, should you want to at some time in the future. If there's anything you want to talk about privately, why not drop me an email? Please look after yourself and remember there are more important things than this. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm sorry if the article edits are demotivating you - that is about as far from my intention as it can be. I I ahve caused any problem I apologise. I will make a point of going back over them as soon as I can and have another look at the assessments, as you correctly point out am trying to work quickly, probably too quickly at times. By the way the stub class really means that the article can have more added to it (sometimes much more), it is not really a negative critic of what has already been done.

One the other points about the infobox additions they are mostly those agreed as part of the standard content for infoboxes for novel articles. If these are problematic we should look over the stardards and revise or enhance them. You are the first to have indicated a problem with some of these issues, so you "may" be alone in this, although of course that is not certain for sure. Just on of those issues, the media type "Paperback" for instance it is difficult to assign a clear grammatical rule to this as the words are not in used within a sentence where I quite agree they would be "paperback", however they are being used as isolated nouns.

Anyway on all these things and others please do keep editing and any problems we may have I'm sure can be worked out and resolved. Although I have clear opinions, you will find me quite flexible. Cheers. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:Just going back through some of them now - and yes I appear to be having a "very" bad day. I have changed the assessments in some cases up to B-class. Also your latest observation I think you may be right - but do bear in mind that different parts of the wiki world seem to use the term differently. Anyhow criticism on this issue taken on board. It's people like you who keep people like me honest, thanks. And do lend a hand more with the project if you can; the more hands and different opinions the better we will do. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think it would be better for all concerned if we simply ignore the various trolls on these articles instead of engaging them time and again. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:64.59.200.43 has had several warnings and today is vandalizing Salvador Dali (but who isn't?) The Dali article has led me to some great sites, so thanks to those who put it together. --CliffC 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to revert that Saddam article vandalism several times but it refused to stick. Why is that? --Iriseyes 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question on what is considered spamming, I am new to Wikipedia so forgive my ignorance. I recently added some pages to different articles and a few were labeled as spam. I think the websites I added were a good resource for the article, otherwise I would not have added it. My intentions when posting a website are not to get people to "buy something" but in fact it is to inform. If the websites that I add do sell a product are those websites considered spam? What are the links in the article based on when being judged whether they will be allowed on the page or edited out? Thanks. jaeysson

Stealth admin strikes again. ;) I doubt you will, but lemme know if you need anything on that one. Luna Santin 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To Guinnog! It is very important that you just don't take out the article that I contributed to this site--please get in touch with me--either email or whatever is possible.

I must explain something to you. I signed my last attempt--you have no idea how important it is to leave it there--if it is too long, feel free to edit it.

I am new to this page. Please let's communicate. You have done great stuff on your site.

My email is: mailg4@gmail.com 76.168.210.190 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this vandal User talk:85.210.236.17 vandal 85.210.xxx.xxx has been doing this type of vandalism for some time, I been working to revert his activities as well

• User:Sirex98/Sandbox , very nice work! cheers ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Love it: "puerile vandalism"- brings me back to 7th period latin :-) Pcbene 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch finding User:Trubbles. I added a quick note to your WP:ANI report. I don't think these are Maru, but in the end it doesn't really matter. We'll play whack-a-mole with them for a while and they'll slink away back to where they came from. Best as always, Gwernol 14:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've poked Lar, but I haven't had time to pursue it in depth yet. It might be good to get a few generally like-minded supporters of the idea together to start working on something... I'll follow up on this tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:Having a few of us, so that we can keep prodding each other to keep making progress on it, would be useful. Glad to hear that you're in. Georgewilliamherbert 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can prod, and read, and comment, if that would be helpful. But you both know how good I am at actually getting things done. This is a great idea though... ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guinnog,

Welsh?

Could you tell me if Wikipedia has a spellchecking facilty - if so, how does it work please.

Seeing as your obviously an expert - does a 'perfect' article with lots of the more complex features exist so that I can learn from it rather than wade through all the advice pages?

Thanks for any help,

Rosser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)

P.S. I hope you don't mind, but I updated your edit count: 21162!! That's nearly 3 times mine and I've been here longer! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize deeply, I think i just understood the message you sent me and I hope and pray to god I'm responding in the correct manner. I'm new to the wiki community, i've been using the wikipedia for a long time but I was never a member so to speak. Onto the flourine, Theodoregray.com is where i got my information, and this is the exact link: http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/009.5/index.s12.html in the picture, as you will see, the sample is a brownish color. I would have put up a picture in the fluorine article but i haven't asked permission yet. Again, I apologize sincerely for my ignorance and I hope you can accept.

BlackIvy88 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Guess who it is! (Hey Guinnog...)

The JavaScript pages that I create turn out formatted incorrectly. Here are a few samples:

User:StonedChipmunk/usermessagechanger.js

User:StonedChipmunk/enhanceduserpage.js

User:StonedChipmunk/statuschanger.js

User:StonedChipmunk/monobook.js (this one is really bad)

Any ideas what is going wrong? (In turn, the bad formatting doesn't allow the scripts to run.) Oh, and it would be great if you could reply on my talk page since I've asked this question to a few Wikiscripters and don't feel like checking my watchlist. --StonedChipmunk 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Now, my proposal was for Cork to point to the disambig page, with the city article at Cork (city)." How is that any different from the archived proposal (that failed) from a couple of weeks ago? --Serge 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, the previous straw poll was close (10 for, 13 against), and it seems that more people are involved this time, including a number of very experienced Wikipedians that were made aware of the issue by the ANI post, so it may be worth running it again and settling the matter once and for all (I hope!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

::Exactly. I hope I made my reasoning for this clear on the article talk page. What is not an option is to keep fighting about it. We should be able to solve the problem between us I think. --Guinnog 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that self advertising on the Talk:Kākāriki page by user 222.154.235.173? I am not sure what to do about it when it is on a talk page. 84.13.153.55 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. There is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan on-going. I thought you might be intrested, as you have some "experience" from the past (gained while editing 7WTC article) about how does coediting articles with MONGO and "his team" look like. SalvNaut 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that there might be a vandal on 203.87.210.230. ### 89.241.107.228 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Only one edit yesterday, hasn't edited since. Not a strong lead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:82.110.188.61 Vandal found. ### 89.240.166.87 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog,

Please forgive my unfamiliarity but I am only just learning how to use the finer points of Wikipedia today and have only today created an account.

I believe (unless I've made a mistake somehow) that you and I have been counter-editing the page on 6 SCOTS and changing each others' content. I am the Battalion's Unit Press Officer and as such am supposed to be the authoritative source for information :)

If I have got the right person and the right method of communication, please feel free to return contact.

T.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarpaulin (talk • contribs)

I found you as an author from bowls. At time I write some artikels about Bowls-Sport in german look :de:Boule-Sport. The german artikel :de:Bowls have qualati-Problems.I have many Information about Pétanque, the organsations of Bowls-Sport, some information of other french bowls sport, but no good informations of Bowls. My english is not perfect, so I can not easely translate the english artikel. Can you help? --Chauki (LRB) 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauki (talk • contribs)

Can you translate, the article ore part of the article in german?. Some question: I think bowls ist at first a single sport. Are there like in Pétanque, double and triple. Play women and men together? --Chauki 09:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HI, the creator of Blue letter bible has asked my advice from time to time. Could you take a look, he seems concerned about NPOV. Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to add to User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog - Per most recent notes on WP:ANI and Talk:Cork Now [[Talk:Cork (city)), I had made my peace with the move proposal. However, the manner in which it was instrumented was improper, discourteous to the contributors, and recklessly disorganised. Given that you did not afford the rest of us the opportunity to help out, I hope that you are going to make good on your commitment and fix the thousands of links which are now incorrectly addressed! Guliolopez 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm certainly sorry you feel that way. I'm in the process of fixing the links just now. Best wishes, --Guinnog 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::Let me know if you need help. My connection is slow, but it'll be some use, I'm sure. If there's a way we can split the job without getting in each other's way... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks for that. I'll do what I can and then let you know. I'm good for a couple more hours tonight anyway. --Guinnog 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spellmaster] for my progress. --Guinnog 19:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:This was an outrageous action to carry out in the absence of any consensus for doing so. Very high-handed and rude, nevermind against the principles of this project. zoney ♣ talk 21:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, as I said to Guliolopez, I'm sorry you think so. I think we had discussed it enough, and I think we had enough of a consensus to do this. --Guinnog 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I remain truly sorry that you were unhappy with the action I took. It reflected consensus as I saw it and I hope you will accept that I acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia we are writing together at heart. In changing 732 of the links (as I promised), I think I also added much valuable information to it. See Special:Contributions/Spellmaster and :Image:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg for details. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

High five. —ptk✰fgs 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks! --Guinnog 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::A job well done ! I had a snoop over the what-links-here, and everything looked spiffy. The only other issue was that Cork City had been changed to a dab page. Given that the phrase "Cork City" on WP nearly always means the city, not Cork City F.C., I reverted it to a redirect after changing the links to Cork (city) to be on the safe side. I still think a lot of the links should be to County Cork, or to one of the many towns and villages nearby, but I only changed things when I was pretty sure it meant the county not the city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After a few weeks editing other articles, I've decided to come back to editing some of the Scottish ones for WikiProject Scotland. I'm still planning to make Scottish Borders a featured article.

See the talk page of the Scottish Borders article for details. --SunStar Net 11:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog,

Many thanks for your reply to my plea last week. I have taken a few days to reply because I wanted to watch the 52nd Lowland Regiment entry, the original version of which was written by me nearly 2 years ago, on Wikipedia to see how it changed.

I understand entirely the policy to which you referred with regard to objectivity and distance from the subject and I have no intention of falsely 'bigging up' my unit. However, what have been trying to do is correct factual errors pertaining to the battalion as it is today.

On the few occasions I have attempted to do this, one or two other wikipedians have reintroduced inaccuracies that, whilst they might prefer or believe to be true, are not and have been getting a few people, including myself, in trouble!

So just now I'm not sure if there's any recourse to take. I cannot talk in this way with the main culprit as he is not a registered user and I'm just wondering whether I should just tell the people who keep asking me to ensure the article is correct that there's no way to do this and they shouldn't trust Wikipedia :-o

Many thanks for your time, it and your knowledge and opinion are appreciated.

T.

Tarpaulin 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is than a vandyl on 204.131.165.130? ### 84.13.183.223 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:Has been warned. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", {{Vandal|Solidpoint}} made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an [http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1458 external forum] (See ANI thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#C.27.27Italic_text.27.27opyright_violation_and_abuse_question_on_.5B.5B6.5_Grendel.5D.5D]). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering if you were interested in a new proposed WikiProject. It is called Tranport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. The proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. For the temp page, see User:Simply south/WikiProject Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. I was referred to you by Pencefn btw. Simply south 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Could i ask for your help in setting the page up? I am taking a chance with this page as i have never done a wikiproject before. Simply south 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no chance. Only being bold. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:LOL, sure. I would think 6 or 8 people to make it viable though, wouldn't you? --Guinnog 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasonably, i have 6 right now but am still going to wait for more, possibly. Anyway l

l

\ /

I am now facing problems with the proposal covering more than i originally thought and am querying the name. What do you think this should be called?

I am thinking about those i have put on the proposals page, plus also suggestions of "Scottish Rapid Transit", "Transit\"Tranportation in Scotland"...

I wa also hoping that this wouldn't cover ALL forms of transport although i now don't know what to do. What should happen? Simply south 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.146.230.53 this guy's] edit to Click fraud as linkspam, mostly because the article it linked to was barely literate. Then I looked at the article at another link, Donald Rumsfeld, and it seemed like a real article. Thoughts? --CliffC 13:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mains has returned to his old ways. I am hoping that you will have a word with him about it, and get him to knock it off.Lonewolf BC 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:(Transferred to here from my talk page. For sake of conversational coherence, please let keep us this on yours. I am "watching" this page, so message-notification is not a problem. --Lonewolf BC)

:Thanks a lot. Can I ask you to get involved in the exercise at User talk:Guinnog/date linking? I'd like to get this finished off in the next days. I feel this could lead us to a proper resolution of this problem. --Guinnog 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::I'd be glad to take part in the exercise. Meanwhile, please have a word with Mains. He seems disinclined to listen to me, and there is no way I keep up with the high-volume edits with which he is again pushing ahead -- plus I fear I might get in hot water for "wiki-stalking" if I were to try, being as I am not an admin. -- Lonewolf BC 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I have had a word with him. I'll keep an eye out; I really don't want things to turn nasty again. --Guinnog 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Ditto that last! -- Lonewolf BC 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I've just checked and he hasn't done any more since my last message to him. Let's all keep a cool head here, ok? --Guinnog 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:Guinnog: it would be helpful if you could dissuade Lonewolf BC from using intemperate and insulting language toward me as he has now done on my talk page and regardless of what are obviously very strong opinions he may have of my work. Thanks Hmains 22:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please comment on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wood345&diff=91487488&oldid=91487127 this edit], where you basically confirm that user Woods345 did a page blank, even though the provided diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine&diff=91481699&oldid=90429904] does not show anything like that? Han-Kwang 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Hmm, the offending edit was around the same time as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polonium&diff=prev&oldid=91481310 this one] where the whole page was replaced by some random other page after doing a section save. When I just looked back, the mysterious diff had disappeared. Most likely not Wood345's fault. Han-Kwang 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I recently replaced your uploaded cover image at The Prisoner of Zenda with an image of the second edition cover of the book per User:Chick Bowen/Bad book covers. A recent cover like yours technically would not be acceptable under the "replaceable" clause of our fair use policy, since the books' original covers, title pages, etc. would be free. Thanks, and I was just letting you know that I did this. QueenStupid 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know. --Guinnog 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see your indef block until after I had left the message on that user's talk page. I think the likelihood of this one being anything except a full-time vandal is about 0.01%. Should that turn out to be the case I'll unblock but I really don't think there was anything wrong with the block :-) Best, Gwernol 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Judging by the latest comment on the talk page (I reverted it) make that 0.0% that this is anything but a troll. The indef block is looking very good :-) Gwernol 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User Davdaott has removed enourmus amounts of demographic information and cited statements, is that not vandalism? --r9tgokunks 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was watching the recent changes for a few refreshes and watched you effectively carpet a vandal. =) Thanks for the entertainment, and for the links to the [http://www.politicalcompass.org/index Political Compass], and for the link to [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther DefendEachOther] ... keep up the good work! JubalHarshaw 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. I did a few today; can you remember which one tickled you so much? --Guinnog 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember one where the guy had edited his talk page from your warning to "WHO THE FUCK IS GUINNOG" ... I guess he found out, didn't he? JubalHarshaw 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Heh. Yes, I enjoyed that one too! --Guinnog 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Following your good example, I've been doing a bit of vandal fighting myself lately, and my user page got vandalized for the first time! I must be doing something right! JubalHarshaw 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now decided to rename the project to Transport in Scotland (after caving in). This is going to be very broad but i have stated it will focus primarily on public transport. Do you think this is going to be any good? I have also made a start on the sub-page. Simply south 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if i keep bothering you. Just to say that i have gone ahead and now it is under Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Simply south 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You claim that this is the worldwide correct pelling of Humourous please provide evidence to support this claim.--Lucy-marie 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for clearing up this issue--Lucy-marie 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why have you removed the two photos of Bennett's Tree-kangaroo which I recently posted there at the request of the photographer? I will restore them to the article. If you think they still shouldn't be there - please have the courtesy to discuss it with me first on my Talk page. Yours John Hill 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry - that appears to have been my fault. Sandy Lloyd (the photographer) has said that she is really happy for the photos to be used and I discussed with her previously that they would then become available to anyone to download and use. She was happy with this. I just was not aware that the copyright tag I chose was not sufficient for them to be posted. I have now tagged them as GFDL. If you think there is still some problem would you please let me know? Thanks, John Hill 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pleae

Why did you delete our image? We're part of the production company and we OWN the image. Please don't do this again. Thank you!

(Please reply here. I've got your page on watch. -- LW 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I've run afoul of an admin who's causing me some trouble. For example, he's been messing with my talk page by posting "warnings" against things I've not done, and commanding me not to remove them. You seem like a reasonable fellow, and I'm wondering if you might help me out. Just some advice on where I stand would be good, and pointers on where I might take things. If you you care to give it, a the perspective of a fair-minded third party would be useful, I think -- just told to me, if you'd rather not get in the middle. This is weird. I really have to wonder how this guy got his stripes. Anyhow, please let me know if you can assist -- or point me to someone else, if you'd rather. -- Lonewolf BC 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:(Oops. I too slow. I trust you won't mind the transfer -- LW, 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

: Thanks for your message. I will have a look and see what I can do. --Guinnog 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks much. -- Lonewolf BC 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the speedy tag , i was under the impression that non commercial image where not allow on wiki . When i uploaded this image it wasn't tagged as non commercial but is now (Gnevin 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

The page Nurse Anesthetist has had its images deleted twice by wiki editors, lastly you. I have recieved full permission to display the images on Wikipedia from the copyright owners. I have sent the permission letter to Wikimedia. I have approprately discribed the permission and use in the upload system. I cannot understand what is going on!! Please tell me in plain english why they are being deleted, and what I am doing wrong.Eclipse Anesthesia 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly was the problem with my uploaded image? Not only is it album artwork and therefore under Fair Use (as far as I know), I asked the artist himself for permission to use it.

Blutpanzer 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

Blutpanzer 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently you removed a speedy delete nomination form this image leaving "?" as an edit summary. The messege in the nomination was that a copy exsists on commons. That is to say wiki commons. Since a copy exsists on Wikicommons the Wikipedia copy is redundant. However, I have not replaced the nomination since the image is currently up for AfD there. Kc4 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for explaining that. Let me know if you need it deleted again. --Guinnog 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with this guy? I happened to notice your removing him from guitarist lists, and I followed to see the ping pong routine on his article with the image, and also the repeated deleting and recreating of said image. This last time, he uploaded it with the GFDL-self tag. --Ars Scriptor 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:No, I've never heard of him. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything. Between WP:AUTO and the not-quite-notability, I think it's a candidate for deletion. --Ars Scriptor 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why you banned Rafikilives permanently? I'm pretty sure my warning only made it onto his talk page after his second act of vandalism. His two vandalisms of John Prescott appear to be his only post so it seems unfair (if true) to characterise it as a 'vandalism only' account. Should he/she not have been given the opportunity to contribute more positively. WJBscribe 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my intention is to make a small photo gallery of the campus and proposed changes to the Royal Holloway campus. I have emailed both the college and the students union who have provided me with the images I am trying to upload. They have given total freedom for these images to be used. No strings attached. Please tell me what I have to do (without referring me to some page about a mile long, I don't have that much free time to read it :-) to be able to complete this task. I am not a Wikipedia expert, the only page i edit is the RHUL one. I am a student there. Any help you could provide would be helpful, you know what you're doing, I don't. Thank you, looking forward to your help, and all the best!!! --Pbss08 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My userpage is animated now! I don't hate barnstars, and I'm flattered and very happy to get one. Thank you thank you. :) --Galaxiaad 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While the guy probably isn't notable enough to have a page here, I have restored the page anyway, as it was speedy tagged by a troll sock that disrupts WP:PNT by tagging all pages that we are deciding whether or not to translate for speedy deletion. If you see a page in a foreign language tagged for speedy by a new account with a random letter username, please don't delete it, but rollback and block the sock (or tell me). Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, can you help me with the Scottish Borders article - I am considering taking it to peer review, would this be a good suggestion?? Thanks, --SunStar Net^talk 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

why was the topic about the kode (band)deleted?

there was nothing bad about it.

i was just doing it for a friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abarry12 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Scottish Borders is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish Borders/archive1. Please feel free to comment. --SunStar Net^talk 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I should have included a reference. I think there may have been a quote from the poem printed just inside my copy of the book, but I'll have to check that as my memory isn't photographic. I know that the poem itself contains the line - [http://www.generationterrorists.com/poems/the_old_astronomer_to_his_pupil.shtml here is a copy]. I've found an [http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/ianrankin.html interview] where his answer about the title gives a fuller quote that also matches the poem. Thanks for pointing out the lack of references for my contribution - I'll amend the article to include those references. Autarch 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I seem to have the opposite tendency - when I first read The Lord of the Rings I even read the intro!! Mind you, sometimes there can be info tucked away on the copyright page - alternate titles, for example. Autarch 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also edited the pages Ian Rankin and Black and Blue (novel) to mention The Dancing Pigs - both interviews mention them, so I figured I'd add the information. So you've also encouraged me to improve a couple more articles. Autarch 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Left you a mail + Ceoil 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it because it was one of the only aircraft articles that did not conform to either "(Manufacturer) (Model)" or to the DoD naming scheme. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Being swift or belated is not the matter. Somehow you got remember that someone have revert your vandalized userpage :-) So I'm glad about it. Happy editing!!! ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted this article once already as an attack page. It was recreated, and another admin decided to put it up for AFD instead of speedying it. You might want to delete it again and protect. Just a heads up. 66.35.138.9 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused about the fair use thing, I have images and own the copyright what do I do to stop you from deleting them I tried a lot of ways even suggested tags. I sure its really simple and I’m keen to learn. Thanks Chris Follows 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't use copyright images here, except under the provision of fair use. Can you please not upload any more material which breaks our rules. Thanks --Guinnog 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted another image you uploaded after I left you this message. Again, please read our image upload policy; it will save you and me both some time if you upload images properly. Please ask me for help if you need it. --Guinnog 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that new user 196.219.136.30 has introduced quotes from "Fady Bahig's novel The Journey of The Fool" into seven of the eight articles he has edited so far. Official thoughts on this? --CliffC 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a non-notable book and author - if you suggest edit-summmary wording, I'll clean these up myself. --CliffC 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:Guinnog, thanks for the message and good example. I'll handle more of these on my own. As a matter of fact I just cleaned up after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leightonmowbray this probably well-intentioned person]. On more-sensitive issues like the Mediaopedia links mentioned above I'll still defer to you. --CliffC 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(18 days later) I've reverted some more-recent "Fady Bahig" additions as NN several times, in several articles, under several IPs (diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portrait&diff=prev&oldid=96762601],

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Namaste&diff=prev&oldid=96423787],

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_%28philosophy%29&diff=prev&oldid=96422206],

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portrait&diff=prev&oldid=96423546],

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_%28philosophy%29&diff=prev&oldid=93614887] and possibly others); it's become something of a game. Today some of the reverted text resurfaced in talk page Talk:Portrait with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APortrait&diff=97062022&oldid=95119331 similar text], but apparently posted by legitimate user User:The stuart. Does this material belong anywhere in Wikipedia? Thanks for your advice. --CliffC 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

...has been vandalizing since 30 November, four warnings issued, needs a timeout? Thanks for looking at these. --CliffC 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you removed my comment....and rightfully so, but you and I both know that is the truth and that is part of the reason of why he is leaving and that if nothing is actually done about it we'll be losing plenty more.--Jersey Devil 08:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:G, This is a serious question: Then why do you tolerate the ridiculously rude behavior out of Seabhcan? Morton devonshire 09:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the message that you have left me in my page. Sorry for not putting this message in the right place (your talk page is large and i am still new and confused) I just wanted to tell you why i reversed. The quote on Taboo was (imho) very nice, it totally materialized the subject that's why i reversed it. I think (and that's not obligatory) that the quotes should better be judged by their value than by the person who said them, I can't start an article on Mr/Mrs Bahig because i don't know much about that person, and perhaps it'd be deleted as well.

Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.136.30 (talk • contribs)

Will give your advice a go, and re-read the image use policy, I should understand it a bit better this time, all the best Chrisgo 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your nice comments on my talk page, Guinnog. Yes, even with decoupled linking and autoformatting syntaxes, there'll still be debate about which chronological items are worth linking. I do wish that the chronological articles were better.

The new syntax won't affect the tension between pro- and anti-linkers; that debate will continue, and your article may help to clarify the issues. Tony 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...please look at User:Vikasramachandran. First few changes were funny, but now it's turned darker and there's a phone number. --CliffC 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've reverted a couple of your edits recently. Can you explain what you mean about nonsense please as just changing the article with an edit summary including that word is less than compelling. Thanks, --Guinnog 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:No problem, i thought it was obvious. Meithal 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this article under the backlogged "Articles needing copyediting" and had a go at it. Would you give it a look and see if the tag can come off? I sure fixed a lot of links and typos, and rewrote a lot of sentences (at least in the first 3 sections). I'm wondering if every single year mentioned needs a link, even though this is a timeline article. Anyway, let me know what you think and if it's good I'll take the tag off. Gaviidae 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:I see you changed "aluminum" to "aluminium" which is also correct but British/Commonwealth spelling. Do you think the rest of the article should be Britishised then? So far all the -izing and -ized endings are with z. I could make them with s and add u's to -or if you think it's better. I wasn't sure because even though a lot of the scientists involved were Europeans, I dunno how the article was originally written (commonwealth or US). Lemme know, thx Gaviidae 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alvin York this time, just silliness, but has had several warnings. Sorry to be a pest. --CliffC 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply for you by email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's image quality that concerns you, then I won't stop you. I was worried you were incorrectly concerned with copyright. Sorry for the misunderstanding, i kan reed 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DId you read what I wrote on Sarah's talk page, and if is, why the flip response to me? Sarah just said there wasn't any WP:Office on this article. I believe she is correct. Yet an admin (Samir) removed my comment for WP:Office - when there was none? I am protesting the action of an admin (Samir) who assumed there was a WP:Office (when it does not appear there ever was). I can't ask Tyrenius about the action of another admin, now can I? I also asked Samir, for what it is worth, but do not expect a civil response from him. Oh, and is there a rule that I am not aware of that says I cannot ask questions about an action taken? Or am I being uncivil for asking? If I sound frustrated, I am. This is truly ridiculous.Jance 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you. I think my note to Sarah said it all. I found it odd that an admin (not Sarah) removed a message that violated no rule, and surely no Wiki WP:Office as he claimed. In the scheme of things, it is a minor but annoying point. It has been an ongoing battle with an editor who wrote the article on G Patrick Maxwell, among others. I hope that someone/anyone will look at these articles and do something, as anything I do is reverted by Oliver. Come to think of it, anything anyone does is reverted by Oliver. On another article, he called an epidemiologist a "3rd party" who should not be allowed to edit because she "lobbies all over the world" against his favored topic. The "3rd party" was telling, since that usually suggests one who is not a party to a contract (okay, that is my background coming out). But I suspect that 'outsider' would be a colloqual understanding of the term "3rd party". I wasn't aware that there were 3rd party editors in Wikipedia. This has been a 'Wiki" learning experience - in the last several months, I have found a small handful of people (Including a couple of admins) who behave like a bad condo board. The 'politics' I have seen here may be pettier, presumably because there is so little at stake. And for that reason, I leave it in the hands of others (including you, if you are interested) who can take a look for themselves. Jance 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you recently reverted an edit I made to David Irving's profile, describing him as a historian and not a holocaust denier. Thank you for pointing out that the subject has already been discussed at length. I have now read the comments in his discussion page, and I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. It appears that most commentators are of the opinion that the neutral-sounding "historian" is more appropriate to an encyclopaedia than the emotive and subjective term "holocaust denier". Surely it is appropriate in a controversial case to ensure that the majority view is reflected? How can you be sure that your personal views on the subject do not outweigh your responsibilities as a Wiki admin? Johnx10 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite reply on my discussion page, outlining the fact that since Irving has been convicted of holocaust denial, this is how he should be described by Wikipedia. Unfortunately this logic is inconsistent with other entries in Wikipedia. Consider the case of Mike Tyson. Using your logic, he would be introduced as an American rapist, and not as a boxer, due to his conviction for rape. Nelson Mandela would be introduced, unacceptably, as a terrorist. There are many other examples, as you will be aware. I ask you simply to apply the same logic in this article as in other Wiki articles, and list the individual according to his primary activity, and not according to the name of a conviction. Sorry for clinging to this issue, but I use Wiki extensively and want to be sure that the admins hold to a neutral and consistent viewpoint. Johnx10 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for warning about the images. I took them off my page. Andrew Winston 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting 72.10.104.33 who has got a string of edits. ### 89.240.161.35 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick block of 63.113.199.109; that guy's been running amok for a while now. Hopefully, he'll think twice before going on another vandalism and personal attack rampage. --JFreeman ^(talk) 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite sure why a link to a Clash web site is "inappropriate" on a page about the Clash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swessell (talk • contribs)

:It really doesn't add much to the article, it's a Geocities site, it has been removed several times already. --Guinnog 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright and fair use is complex stuff. On the other hand Bluebaramundi is trying it on and about 1 edit away from an indef block... No worries about the bot editing conflict, there was a lot of edits coming in very fast for a while there :-) Best, Gwernol 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to this article. === Vernon White (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making any further edits like this one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Dickens&diff=prev&oldid=95407073]. UK English is perfectly ok in an article about a British writer. Thanks. --Guinnog 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog, OK, we can leave it in the U.K. English form, if it so disturbs you otherwise. However, it's my humble understanding that U.S. English is the standard for this version of Wikipedia. --Tito4000 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:If this were the case, then a lot of us users of British English would move out! === Vernon White (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::Dear Tito4000, your humble understanding is not in accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. If you wish to write in USian, you're free to do so on your own patch. .. dave souza, talk 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog, Vernon, and Dave: Touché! I yield to your well referenced explanation. I'm sorry for the humble misunderstanding on my part. As Guinnog correctly pointed out, my editing was in fact specifically out of line. And Vernon, please don't move out! I promise I won't let my hand do that again when I'm on edition mode. Sorry folks, no harm meant. Happy holidays! --Tito4000 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A little empathy, please. I'm sick of people quoting references they did not read. Thank you. RCS 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:Telling people, as a general rule, not to revert right information under righteous pretexts. This morning was the third time i had to correct Will Sampson's height. Some people just won't believe he was "only" 6ft5 and not several inches taller. Same - worse - for Uday Hussein. Some bloke who brings in an article saying he was "almost 2 meters" tall (6 ft 7) keeps on making him a staunch seven footer. Talk about not getting angry ! Have a nice day. RCS 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed "The term is thus equivalent to the American Benedict Arnold. " from the Quisling article. -Sensemaker

I got rid of the comparison because I didn't think it added anything to the article, as above. It seemed somewhat OR to me, and also rather Americocentric in an article about a European politician. I hope that makes sense.

: It does make sense (i.e. it is not self-contradictory), but I find it hard to agree with the assessment anyway. I'm not American (and have only visited the US once, briefly), I'm Swedish, so it's kinda odd to be accused of being Americocentric. The reason I put it in is that every European I have told about the expression "a Benedict Arnold" has immediately understood what I meant when I said it was an American version of "a Quisling" and vice versa (I have American acquaintances online). They all found it enlightening and interesting. When I first learned of the expression "a Benedict Arnold" I certainly found it interesting. I do believe it adds something to the article. An American immediately understand how the term works because he can compare it to a common American word and a European gets to hear about an interesting parallell that he can look up in a link. If you hadn't known already about the expression "a Benedict Arnold" wouldn't you find it interesting to read that there is another person whose name has become synonymous with "traitor". In Sweden, occasionally the word "Cronstedt" has been used in a similar way but it would be a lot less common than either of "Quisling" or "Benedict Arnold" so I didn'r really bring it up. -Sensemaker

Though your wiki'ing is prolific and to be respected, your rv'ing of my edits to the Irving lead is perhaps heavy handed. Last year I brought the article from a jumbled mess of libelisms and bias to a respectful, well-rounded well-structured article. I see the structure remains -- somewhat -- to this day. Please read my notes at the bottom of the discussion page before undoing my redo :) Danke

:I did. Please read my comment there. --Guinnog 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the vandal Meeptastic. I'm new to Wikipedia and had been researching how to deal with vandalism for the last 30 minutes. Then I saw that you warned this user. Someone else also blocked the user, and someone else deleted this user's latest vandalism. Great community effort!! Vchao 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. I reverted your changes to the 9/11 page a while ago - but please don't take it personally (and, just so you know, my revert was itself reverted). I think I was thrown off by a photo caption that was also edited (maybe), and right now I have more pressing things than going back in the history to figure out exactly what was running through my head that night. Your edit was right. My revert was wrong. Thanks for your dedication to several of Wikipedia's more controversial articles. --Action Jackson IV 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will answer your questions, as always. I feel no need to answer Rebecca's bad faith, insulting comments. What is your question at this point? You should also know by now that she will accept nothing less than 100% of what she wants: no date unlinking unless she approves of them, one by one. All other conversation with her is rather pointless, given her position, attitude and disruptive behavior. Hmains

:I see you both accusing each other of bad faith. I have expended considerable effort over time in trying to analyse the sort of edits you were falling out over. It may be that I have failed. Let me think about it. --Guinnog 08:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:If you want to write an answer that you yourself and other editors could live with, let me see it. If ok to me, I would use that answer as mine. Then you can see what Rebecca thinks of it. Hmains 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, good suggestion. --Guinnog 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have said time and time again that I have absolutely no problem with people using their discretion as to when to remove date links (as many editors do without incident), and I don't want to have to individually check someone's edits because they are incapable of exercising that discretion. All I'm waiting for is some sign that Hmains intends to actually use that discretion rather than killing each and every date link as in the past. Rebecca 00:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have seen my contributions the the Ireland discussion page and hope to hear from you your suggestions for a compromise, as that is my intention. Somethingoranother 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Ireland map showing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should say below it:

Map of Ireland showing the state of Republic of Ireland and the UK province of Northern Ireland.

What's your view on this? Somethingoranother 07:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the beginning of the Ireland article is:

{{dablink|This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole, which includes the state of Republic of Ireland and the UK province of Northern Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).}}

What's the your view on this? Somethingoranother 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does everything I contribute to the Ireland page always seem to get reverted? Am I not allowed to contribute?

Plus how is the image redundent?

And I'm not even allowed to write UK below a map, which means this is getting to a point of being ridiculous where I'm not even allowed to contribute Somethingoranother 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Look I've contributed to loads of articles over the past year and I've never, never had such a to do over contributing where I'm just not allowed to contribute anything at all, as I haven't been allowed to with the Ireland article. And then to be threaten with being blocked if I don't obey and actually being blocked is to be honest I'm being oppressed here and when the contributions I'm wanting to make are so minor it's just ridiculous. As for getting general consesus it seems only to be you and your friend who's even bothered about me making contributions to the article and it would appear the only consensus I can get is from you as there's no one else to get consensus from because they're simple not bothered about me making such minor contributions.

If it really is that you seem to have some domination over the Ireland article and are preventing others from contributing to it then I see no choice but to report this to other Administrators and as high as I possibly can take this complaint. Somethingoranother 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see you've already taken the matter to WP:AN/I where it has been dealt with accordingly. Please try to engage with the editing community rather than simply reverting to your POV again and again. The matter is now on the relevant talk page, so engage with folks there. Let's try to work together on this one - Alison^✍ 11:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for taking time out to review me and for your positive feedback. Good to know that a long-standing admin okays my handiwork. Thanks! Zunaid©^{Review me!} 10:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On the page "Talk:Skip (container)" the owners (or staff) have put a link to a website for a skip magazine. If it was on an article page I would delete it, but I am not sure to do that same on a talk page. My impression is that the link was spam, that it is not notable and that it should be deleted. The user page of the editor states that it is their website, so a polite message may be appropriate. What are your observations? ### 84.13.182.137 13:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

will you please stop chasing all the articles I contribute towards and reverting them!!!

:Will you please start following the advice you have been given about how to edit the encyclopedia properly? --Guinnog 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I notied you've never contributed toward the Argentina article before until I did then within minutes you reverted my change. PLease don't continue some sort of thing on here where you just chase me reverting all me edits. I have not reverted any of yours.

:How rude. Actually, Argentina was on my watchlist as I edited it a while ago. I have not made any POV-pushing edits in defiance of consensus, so there would be no reason for you to revert me. You are heading for a long block if your poor behaviour continues. Is that what you want? --Guinnog 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You've really got it in for me haven't you? Somethingoranother 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

:No. I'm trying to do my job as an admin. --Guinnog 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The what was wrong with the map I put on the argentina article?

I've seen the discussion page and no one has any objections so please leave me alone one here please

You say I'm spreading my POV isn't having a map which shows the falklands as part of argentina POV? I simply change the map so this wasn't so anymore. So you're saying I can't changed the map to the map from the CIA world fact book which I used before? Somethingoranother 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

:You seem confused. The effect of your edit (which you repeated three times) was to remove the CIA map and replace it with one without copyright info and in a deprecated file format. --Guinnog 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

the previous one was changed to show falkands in same colour as argentina. the one I put up is an unedited one from the CIA fact book Somethingoranother 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

:In that case you need to learn how to use copyright tags properly. All images used here must be tagged appropriately. Uploading images without a tag just makes work for someone else who will have to delete them. --Guinnog 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks for the tip Somethingoranother 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank and congratulate for the skillful edits in your recent changes to David Irving. Johnx10 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this subject and have posted some ideas at User:Flutefluteflute/AWB, RETF & UBM. Please give your comments on the talk page of that page. Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem , accidents happen (Gnevin 21:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. Great minds think alike, because I was intending to leave a note for you thanking you for breaking the logjam by shortening the lead to the basic facts and making it much more readable. I hope I haven't lengthened it too much, and if I have, feel free to tweak away. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That still isn't going to work, as he's still entirely free to shoot each and every date link on sight, as he's always done. The onus should not be on me to make him provide justifications for his edits - he should provide that himself, and if he doesn't have one, he shouldn't be making them. "Taking into account the value" will simply be interpreted as "I can kill them all as I don't think they have any value", just as before. Rebecca 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm. It was hard to write a form of words I thought you could both live with. I worried that you might not find it acceptable. I'm afraid it seems I was right to be worried.

:Would you trust me just to "enforce" the spirit of the agreement then? I know I came at this from a very different angle than you, but I hope I know your objections well enough to keep check that someone is keeping to the spirit of an agreement, and I hope you trust me to do that faithfully to the best of my abilities, which I would certainly undertake to do.

:It would be personally very satisfying to me to wrap this up today, if we can all three agree. Although I am not a Christian myself, I recognise the nice symbol that getting this resolved on Christmas Day would constitute.

:I would furthermore say I'd like to enlist both of you to help me in the New Year to take this whole argument forward even further with the aim of using our findings here to try to improve the MoS guidance to prevent such disagreements from happening in the future. --Guinnog 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

::We need to come up with a permanent resolution - if Hmains starts (as he seems to be preparing to do, based on his refusal to state anything to the contrary despite numerous opportunities) to kill all on sight, then it's a hell of a job for you to try to keep him in line. See my comments above (in the "answers" section): all I need is a promise that he'll use his discretion, not kill each and every date link, and provide reasoning apart from "it's a date link". Rebecca 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok. I'll amend the proposed text I am asking him to agree to. Don't worry about the workload; I am a 'holic anyway and it wouldn't be that onerous to check a user's contributions every day or two. --Guinnog 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, ejnoy also. Hmains 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still too weak, and too much has happened for me to trust that Hmains in particular could abide by the spirit of this; this still allows him to delete virtually everything he comes across, as long as he "gives proper consideration" to potentially leaving some in place. What he should be doing is determining which - and not according to his "all must die" criteria - provide some use to other readers - and leaving them the hell alone. This has not proven difficult for anyone else (and there are many); Hmains is the only person who has had trouble with keeping anything, and with his refusal to make the slightest claim to the contrary, please excuse my cynicism. I just don't think you can legislate good judgement. Rebecca 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

:I will undertake to help ensure that good judgement is employed. Guinnog 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A major part of the problem is that Rebecca does not have the facts. My edits to dates are part of the overall copy-editing I do to articles I choose to work on. This is a fact she will not accept, and which you seem to accept just on her say so--unless you are just trying to make her feel good. As for the other editor who periodically jumps in, I do not believe I should have to put up with his insulting statements regarding the quality of my editing. Copyediting is not writing, and I am doing copyediting. Something he seems unable to accept or understand. Hmains 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment at User talk:Guinnog/date linking. I meant no disrespect to you in what I wrote to Rebecca above. Thanks for taking part. --Guinnog 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I was thinking of them, not you. You have tried really hard and your efforts are appreciated. My only comment to you is you tried reason to deal with unreasonable people. I do not find that works often. Other Admins have tried dealing with her by reason; they failed also. I just want protection from the predations of Rebecca. I notice she only targets non-Admins, those who cannot protect themselves. In other words, bullying and attacking the defenseless. Thanks again. Hmains 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I specifically wrote "Anyone who tries to poison that well of verifiable truth is committing a grave sin against history and must be treated as such" (emphasis added). If there is a difference between "verifiable truth" and "accuracy," I am not familiar with it. I did not mean to offend and I certainly did not mean to come across as a "true believer." Would it make you feel better if I replaced the word "truth" with "accuracy?" --GHcool 19:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guinnog, I talked to Painman before and I have no clue what happened to him. But could you please add the most important facts in Marilyn Monroe history--the lawsuits against the fraud that has been committed under and with her name!

With the support of Anna Strasberg, who has been sued by four photographer's estates.

Wikipedia took tons of info of my first blog exposure on blogcritics.org. I can tell you exactly what. But when I try to inform the world about the latest happenings you just erase the entire post? Why?

Do you see yourself as Wikipedia-police or something?

You guys posted other important information that I discoverd in 13 months of hard and unpaid work.

The lawsuit against Mark Roesler, the estate lawyer is happening on May 7, 2007. You think that this is not important?

All the other important info, what about that?

I gave you my email address before and here it is again. This is very important, as people need to see beyond the beauty of an American legend. They must be warned about the fraud and about the people who have been caught.

That is another Wikipedia fact. So, why are you erasing it constantly? You got so many awards, could you please read the piece, go through it and post it correctly?

Tens of thousands of Marilyn Monroe fans will thank you for it!

If you would please email me, I will send your the entire piece again. Thank you & Merry Christmas.

mailg4@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.210.190 (talk • contribs)

I've left some comments on talk History of Electrochemistry and some changes. Come see what you think. Also, Holidays++ Gaviidae 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, how did blanking Yada Yada on the Evolution talk page help? While the complaint is no doubt malicious, and many of the comments less than polite, you have effectively made the case for the complainant. I invite you to revert. --Michael Johnson 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:Ok. --Guinnog 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. Actually this stuff is a pain in the A. However it occurs all the time on this page, and unless handled carefully just promotes more of the same. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An AfD tag may have been used accidentally incorrectly (but in good faith) and "user:spunko" deleted the AfD tag on the "Simon Gilbert" page. I am not sure if it is a vanity page or not. I am not sure if the page as it currently stands about a journalist is notable. I will be grateful for your observations. Note that the page was changed from a page about a drummer on 10 November 2005 to a page about a journalist. The current "What links here" list are relevant for an eminent drummer, but the current page is about a journalist. It is interesting to note that the editor "user:spunko" has also made page edits to the same University that "Simon Gilbert (journalist)" went to (according to the edits anyway). I guess that the one option would be to revert (rather than delete) the page back to the original Simon Gilbert, keep a watch on the page, and give "user:spunko" (a relatively new user) a polite message. My hunch is that it would be better for an administrator to decide what to do, as he has already had a polite message about this. ### 194.176.105.39 12:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. --Guinnog 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an intense hatred of seeing the rollback tool used on good-faith edits, but anyway, why did you remove the {{tl|fair use reduced}} tag? The previous version was a 1059x1275, way too large of an image to be constituted as fair use. You already uploaded a smaller version - already replaced - so what is in dispute over the tag? Hbdragon88 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, according to the tag, you should delete the old version (the one you uploaded on 3 July) after seven days. Hbdragon88 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guinnog, the vandal that you recently blocked called User:Aeldaar, is IP hopping and vandalizing the warnings left on their talk page. May I suggest protecting the talk page to discontinue this please? Thank you.

:NOTE: As an extra note these are some IP address that I found with the same exact "scum" edits- 86.145.235.50 and 71.227.164.118

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not experimenting on John Prescott. Nor was I experimenting on the John Prescott article. Nothing I wrote was untrue, nor was it unencyclopaedic. 80.47.11.158 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to reference something when the picture quite clearly demonstrates the man is obese? The adultery claims have been referenced further down. I would be happy to say the obesity claim be dropped as it is self-evident, but I don't see why his titular title of "deputy prime minister" or First Secretary of State is more significant than his status as somebody who has publically admitted deceiving parliament and his wife whilst undertaking an extra-marital affair with an individual (his diary secretary) paid from public money. 80.47.11.158 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)