User talk:TheFreeloader

Welcome to Wikipedia from Marek69

Hi, TheFreeloader. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Irresistible force paradox has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi TheFreeloader, unfortunately no, you may not add Youtube as a source (see here), in the instance that you are citing it. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, so as a part of the learning experience, don't worry about the warning. Regards, Fastily (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

re France

Please use Template:Editprotected. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move problem

I agree that the closure of the requested move was improper. However, I do not see any way to contest the inappropriate conduct of the admin at WP:RM like a WP:DRV page. We should find another admin to review the discussion. Erik (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD A2

Hello! Please note that CSD A2 only applies to foreign language articles that exist on another Wikipedia (for example, an article written in Spanish that exists on the Spanish Wikipedia). You recently tagged Arthur Wybrands for deletion under that section, but I could not locate an article by that name on the French Wikipedia. In situations such as those, please place {{notenglish}} on the article and list it on WP:NOTENGLISH. Please be sure to read the official definitions of the CSD criteria before using them. Cheers, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you tom keene Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Magical Blue Orchestra AfD

You somehow missed a couple of steps here -- did you close the TWINKLE window before it finished saving everything? I think I finished the missing steps for you, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I might have done that, although I thought I saw a check mark at all the steps. Thanks anyways for completing the missing steps.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

tom keene copyright

thx for note i added the copyright as bloomberg does it unsure if the all caps is your style thats what we use hope this helps and greatly appreciate the value of copyright that you believe in tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks sorry but i'm lost the photo is from our staff photographer dan acker i thought i placed in the copyright correctly you or someone else want "written" authorization. what does dan acker need to do on this i am on a plane next 24 hours but will look in when i get back to ny thx tom keene thursday 10:00am london

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks will speak to dan acker tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So, show me

I look forward to you letting me know where I violated WP:CIVIL. Should you be able to do so, I will clearly retract any portion of my statement that was in violation. I'm watching here, so please keep the discussion together. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if you couldn't see it yourself, there probably isn't much point in me trying to point it out to you. But anyways, I think it is pretty rude to say to people that their position has no chance of getting implemented, especially in a situation where the policy says the opposite. Also the aggressive tone of your comments is kinda uncalled for in my opinion.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm always open to critique, when reasonably stated and valid. Based on the aggressiveness of the specific editor in trying to rename a country because (as per the beginning of the talkpage) he thinks using French on the English Wikipedia is repulsive, I felt that a very slight degree of aggressive "stop the disruption" was needed - warnings are clearly useful in situations like this. I'm not sure where in policy that it says that it's ok to change the name of a country: perhaps that was a lesson in admin school that I skipped. At no point was I uncivil; at no point did I post a personal attack. I'm still failing to see where you have any belief that I was uncivil. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, where does it say you can't change the name of an article about a country. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that the title of an article should be most commonly used name for that subject. If the common name for a country changes, I see no reason why the name of the article about the country shouldn't change too.

When it comes to civility, I guess there is some degree of subjective judgment in determining that. Just like you made a subjective judgment in determining that the editor you were debating with was being disruptive.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gold Standard

Don't know if it will help, but I've requested semi-protection for the article in hopes it will put our IP editor to make use of the talk page, rather than ignore the comments of everyone who is reverting them. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It might help, although the proper response to this problem probably would be to report him to wp:an/i for disruptive editing. I mean it isn't like there is a persistent stream of various IP editors vandalizing the article. It is just one person who is the problem, so it probably wouldn't be right to keep other IP editors from editing the article because of that person. I have thought about reporting him for a while, but I have hesitated as I hoped explaining wiki-policies would make him understand why his additions are not acceptable. It does not seem to have worked, and the time may have come for seeking to take action against him so as not waste any more people's time.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but I've had it at this point with his act. Next post that's got anything close to a personal attack will start the process of putting something on WP:WQA. Hopefully that will generate some push on our IP editor to change his ways. He had the same pattern on another page as well (2nd Amendment, if I remember correctly) - the voluminous posts, massive sarcasm, vieled and not-so-vieled attacks and an utter disregard for any opinion but his own. Look at his reaction to your compromise post, which is quite literally everything he was wanting - a personal attack. Ravensfire (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Côte d'Ivoire

Be careful.  -- WikHead (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what?TheFreeloader (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire national rugby union team

Freeloader, as you seemed to be the key player in the most recent Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast discussion, I felt I should inform you of a move proposal regarding the country's rugby team at Côte d'Ivoire national rugby union team D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your years of constant service. Thanks! LK (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, really, thanks a lot Lawrence.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gold Standard

WP:V requires that any statement likely to be challenged should be sourced. If what you said is the case, then each of these references should coincide with those statements directly to make the point clear.--  Novus  Orator  07:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That might be nice if we are talking about a topic that has broad consensus, but on contentious issues, every statement that makes a claim needs a reference.--  Novus  Orator  07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, all statements need citations per WP:V. Whether that means a certain view or perspective must predominate is beside the point. Upholding neutrality is what Wikipedia stands for.--  Novus  Orator  07:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is good to hear, but the point is, that needs to be the case on all statements if they can be allowed to be included. If the references exist, then make sure that they clearly support the statements in the article.--  Novus  Orator  07:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is fine, but any statement likely to be challenged must be referenced per WP:V. Context does not need to be compromised when sourcing. Sourcing just needs to exist with that context.--  Novus  Orator  07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On contentious subjects, [[Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The references in question now clearly cite those statements so I have no objection to that material. Part of building a quality encyclopedia is ensuring that the encyclopedic standard is upheld and that no original research is allowed to pass. My removal of that material was perfectly warranted under WP:V until those errors were corrected.--  Novus  Orator  06:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okapi Article

Thank you for the notation on minor edits - the minor edit was meant for my tiny little spelling changes that I did to help support the pop culture section. I did not add nor write that section, I merely helped reword it for a more neutral tone and fixed some errors. Which I see you decided to DELETE again even though the discussion going on was to keep the section and streamline it - while finding another course for the record - which is being done, but you come and wipe a whole section again. PLEASE stop doing that. Wiping an entire section that several people contributed to is not kosher. Notability has been established and agreement that the section ads to the Okjapi article has been established. You can't wipe an entire section because YOU don't think Douglas Adams or the other two references are notable. Yet you did.. again, without discussion. Simply unacceptable. ManofThoth (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Spark

From your comments you seem like you know a fair bit about science. I was hoping you'd be able to help out in addressing IvoryMeerkat's concerns over at Talk:Spark_(fire). If you can help out it would be much appreciated. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know that much about science, but I'd be happy to participate anyways.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Hopefully the users who stubbornly seem to still insist that all sparks are fire will soon be convinced, but regardless it looks like a consensus is emerging for Spark (particle).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it will be completely inappropriate to start an RM for that name soon.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we should begin the RM? All of the outside comments seem to at least prefer the switch, although some may not be in 100% support from it. The only exception to this seems to be with Pablo X, although he gave no reason for opposing the move and seemed to back away after given the reasoning behind it. Colonel Warden and Dream Focus don't seem to be able to understand why the logic behind their argument is flawed, and I doubt that's going to change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We might as well. I don't think a better alternative than 'Spark (particle)' is gonna come along, and in that case we can just as well decide the merits of 'Spark (particle)' in the RM as in the RfC. Also, the sooner the RM gets started the sooner it will be over.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added it. If you think of a better wording for how I wrote that out please go ahead; any improvement would be great.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so we still have Kkmurray giving his reasoning, although his main issue seems to be that this article should also include electrical sparks, which is rather unrelated. Colonel Warden, however, still seems to be just as insistent despite not having giving any real reason for opposing the change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I thought for a moment the RM was gonna get aborted, that's why I didn't participate. But if it is still going ahead then I'll post my opinion there.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was gonna give up on it, but then I reasoned that it would not make sense to finish a discussion on the topic and then have to reopen the topic in order to request the merge.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag

If you feel other aspects of the topic are not sufficiently covered than you would tag those sections with the "expand" template. What you describe is not a neutrality issue. Thus removed this template. What would be best is if you add the info you feel in missing. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a neutrality issue, as the description of the side effects of binge drinking is given a much more prominent role throughout the article compared to in other articles on recreational drug use(like Smoking, drug injection and cannabis smoking). It is not enough to just expand certain section, the whole article needs to be reorganized and refocused. Describing the phenomenon needs to come first, criticism of it may then follow.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pac-Man Championship Edition DX

Was wondering if you wanted to participate in making it a GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I am the best person to ask there. I have never really worked that much on large improvements to video game articles. I have no idea where one would even start.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to, it'd definitely be good experience. Either way, good job on making the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

stop editwarring

the correct procedure is to discuss things - you have discussed nothing that i am aware of.

Please follow our policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not see how I am editwarring. I can't find any of my recent edits which have been contested. And Wikipedia does have principles such as WP:BOLD and WP:BRD which state that not everything one does on Wikipedia has to be discussed before doing it. Sometimes it's better just to do it. Ofcourse if there are any of my edits you are unhappy with, I will be glad to discuss the matter. But you will have to be more specific.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you and the others working so hard to prevent central banking information from showing the FRB page is inaccurate and misleading?

the article clearly supports a model and you and the others are doing all you can to ensure that model is presented as fact with no regard whatsover for NPOV. This bias is embedded into the text from the first words.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I can just say that the way things work on Wikipedia, the consensus views within a scientific community are stated as the facts and are mentioned first in articles on general topics. Minority views are explained later, and only in detail in their own separate articles. As an example you could look the Formation section in the Petroleum article, which states as a fact that petroleum is a fossil fuel made of fossilized organic material, while only explaining the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis briefly afterwards, with the more detailed explanation in the article dedicated to the hypothesis. What I and others are just trying to do is to apply these same standards to articles on economic matters.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You will not allow the feds own documents to be sited to show the existing text about the feds practices is wrong. and almost no text can be added to the main article so that citations can be added.

The central bankers are saying the relending model is totally wrong.

Citations are being deleted simply because they are too threatening to peoples opinions.

If you control what is scientific then you can build any consensus you want and the public knows no different.

Even the mediation cabal invitations were written with abusive bias against me.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You created the mediation cabal case, Andrewedwardjudd, and framed it carefully. Abusive bias, indeed. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to all the text about wonderful people you three received, compared to what i had to endure. I thought i was inviting a mediator to help me with a problem i was having. So of course i carefully thought about how to describe the problem i was having. I did not realise i was inviting the people i had a problem with to come along and create problems for me. The comment you just made is abusive and unnecessary. You for example have had no discussion with me about banking at all. The best you could offer was that i come to your talk and have a fruitless discussion with you. And true to your word i did and you just deleted it without comment. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

(talk page stalker) As a very outside person here, WP:CONSENSUS overrides WP:TRUTH every time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins that is an unnecessarily abusive and underhand comment linking me to wp:truth. I have produced pages of high quality citations to show other editors are confused and lacking knowledgeAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

...and I will remind you of our civility policy, and also that of no personal attacks. We comment on edits, not editors. My statement that WP:CONSENSUS rules still stands. If you need a third opinion or an WP:RFC, then do so. Any further statements that any user "lacks judgement" will lead to an immediate block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

you just linked me to wptruth which is clearly abusive because there is no evidence at all that i am stating an opinion without citations. And yet you want to make that association to my good name and character. Stop making threats also. It is against policy here. I have done nothing to deserve this from you or anybody else. If you want to be civil please apologise for linking me to wptruth rather than focusing as you just did on wpconsensus Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You miss the point: it's not a threat, it's a warning - validly given, and one you should pay attention to. We have dozens of those warnings at our fingertips, and when used correctly (as I am now) can help avoid behaviours such as the ones you're clearly displaying (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

That was not intentional. If we could all calm ourselves and edit other articles (myself included), this would not have happened. Sorry. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)