User talk:Ward3001/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Ward3001/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sonic3KMaster ^talk 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Robinson edit

Perhaps you should ask why I did that before going off the handle and threatening me! I removed the trivia tag because that was not a trivia section but a "use in popular culturen section" to which we have no defined standard of inclusion in articles here at wikipedia. If you had asked you'd have found that out. Don't just threaten people who have good intentions or you may find yourself reported to your bosses!

It never fails, power corrupts! But, perhaps your just wikibonked?

Fr33kman (if you care to know, not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.138.160 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I apologize that I don't use edit summaries all the time, but I did use them for the changes I made just now. Treybien 15:50 July 10 2007 (UTC)

Ron Williams Entry

Hello Ward3001. Please do not change the Ron Williams entry, it is Aetna approved and from Aetna.com. Their are attributions to news releases. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.251.31 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Robinson

This edit was NPOV, shall I cite where he said this is what he was referring to? Wikifried 08:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed the sample from this article. I've moved it to the infobox, where it is more visible and looks much neater. Papa November 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Arden Wohl2

I was just removing my own statements...unfortunatly I didnt know the attention this little article would get....I am really ticked!! what I meant to say didnt come out the right way...I just want to deleted my own remakrs...whats the big deal.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ward3001/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sonic3KMaster ^talk 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl1

thanks for your help with this article,and could you check it out, the improved version and give an opinion on the vote page...:O) I am not asking you how to vote though.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergeist

Hi Ward301, I notice you've been trying to fix the cast list for the film. I agree with you that Heather O'Rourke should not be listed first unless she was billed first. I don't have a copy of the film - do you? I would suggest that the cast list should be in the order they were billed in the film credits. Perhaps you could put something on the talk page to explain that, if you change it back. I'm sure that Craig T Nelson and Jobeth Williams would have been credited first, and although the story centres around Carol Ann, she is absent for a lot of the film. We don't actually see her while the rest of the family is looking for her, and I'm sure that a 5 year old in her first film would not have been given top billing.

Maybe another way of doing it could be to have a subheading for each film under the "cast" header and list the cast for each in order of billing. I think that would be the fairest and most NPOV way of doing it. What do you think? Rossrs 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Maria Goretti

You had questions, here's my answer. Hope I'm not messing up...

I didn't include my source since it wasn't of the online type, but of the audiovisual one. It was the EWTN TV special on Saint Maria Goretti produced by the EWTN, called "Fourteen Flowers of Forgiveness" (or "Catorce Flores de Perdón" in Spanish; since I live in Latin America, I watched the Spanish dub version). It *specifically* stated that only the Goretti family attended the canonization ceremony, and as a proof they showed photographies of the ceremony that featured Assunta and her four remaining children (including two sons, one of them coming all the way from the USA to join his family in such an important event). None of these specific pictures featured Alessandro; only the remaining Gorettis. The EWTN page on Maria Goretti ( http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/goretti.htm ) mentions this; while it states how Assunta and Maria's siblings went to the ceremony, it doesn't say *anywhere* that Alessandro went with them.

EWTN is a quite serious Catholic media network, and the special itself was very well-documented and had several interviews including people who either knew Maria or worked in the beatification/canonization processes, so I went with their version. I'll leave things as they are in the page by now, or at least until I can get a more detailed source, but here I'm proving you that I'm not purely saying things because I say so or believe so. Lunamaria 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia item

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3853/questions http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030525/030525who.html

The above two links should both confirm Tarantino had planned to play Pai Mei. As for Kill Bill being the only Tarantino films he has not appeared in, that can easily be confirmed by looking at the imdb credits for his other films. He has appeared in all of them but Kill Bill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.8.7 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note

I appreciate that. Thank you. Navou ^banter 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hornbeck

Ego has nothing to do with it. You are supposed to request unprotection when you have reached a consensus, we do not wait for you to finish it and watch the page for ever. Cbrown1023 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Cbrown1023 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note ...quote from talk" Page unprotection was requested here and contested here and subsequently declined here. "

Also I placed a note on the admins page, whom protected the article, and they unprotected it today. Navou ^banter 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. K. Butterfield

You cannot be serious: can you? Shakam 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what phenotype means, and unfortunately in America it is a main component in labeling a person's race. And, G. K. Butterfield is clearly not black. Shakam 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love triangle revision

Hi, I just noticed that you reverted some previous edits in your edit on Love triangle, including some edits I made on the spelling and syntax. I don't mean to sound like a nitpicker, but I would like to hear if you want to keep the list of examples of love triangles, and if so, why and how. I'm a bit fearful that it'll grow out of control. Breed Zona 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf-mute

Deaf-mute was the term used to describe her in most reviews of the film. This is why I changed it. Not all deaf people "choose not to talk." --Tellerman

Making this comparable to the "N-word" is pushing it. I see no evidence of "deaf-mute" being offensive to any more than a minority. But whatever, I'll leave it out. There was still no need to confront me in this way. --Tellerman

Ok, I'll drop it if you drop it. It won't/hasn't been re-added. --Tellerman

I don't know how current this issue is but it is true that Deaf and deaf people don't like being called "deaf-mute". For one thing "mute" usually implies a pathology of the vocal cords that makes speaking or vocalizing impossible. Most d/Deaf people can talk or make sounds but many choose not to. Just another deaf person's view. Also, Ward3001, prehaps if you include a little blurb about why you are changing "deaf-Mute" people would be less likely to automatically change it back. I say this because often people who have contributed greatly to a certian page think they "own" the page so they reject any edits. I guess they see edits as a personal attack.Eclarep 02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Eclarep[reply]

Here's an idea...

Get a life and stop shadowing my edits.

Freak.

24.0.97.119 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mute

Number One -- "Mute" is a perfectly acceptable term to use for someone who, for whatever reason, does not speak. That, in fact, is the primary definition of the term -- [1] -- and there are, to my knowledge, no alternatives.
Number Two -- Wikipedia is not censored.
Number Three -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Number Four -- Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Number Five -- You skipped about five steps in the mediation process.

I'm sorry if you or anyone else finds the term offensive, but Wikipedia cannot be expected to reinvent the English language to sidle itself with an EXTRAORDINARILY small percentage of the population. Your repeated comparisons of the word "mute" to the "N-word" is unwarranted, unfounded, and in all ways repellent: the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the population finds the "N-word" to be offensive. Furthermore, you have not suggested any alternate language, and have, instead, insisted on simply removing the word wherever it might be found.

If you and the rest of the hearing-impaired community truly find the word to be offensive, striking it from the lexicon is not the way to affect change. Unilaterally imposing your world-view on the general population is not the way to do it, either. Attempt to raise consciousness. Your continued displays on Wikipedia is not helping your cause; judging from your talk page, this is not the first incident.

It's a WORD. It's not being used hatefully, nor is it being used to disparage the appellant. It is a combination of letters.

24.0.97.119 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting you feel able to be the final word on how a word is used. Language is a community property and it is constantly in flux. Read our entry on euphamism for a better understaning of how words and phrases can fall into/out of fashion, common usage, or taboo status Qaz 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I should expect you to be intellectually honest given your hiding of yourself behind that IP, but come on, who is it who "feel[s] able to be the final word" on the issue, really? We have had several people now complaining about your use of the word "deaf-mute", because your use of it is both inaccurate and (therefore) offensive. You appear to be in a minority of one on this issue Twenex 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ware

Thanks for your questions and your patience in reversion.

If a year link is removed, it's usually removed for a reason. If you look at my comments, usually (*but not this time) I typically give the reason as removing a redundant link. The 2006 year was formatted as a link just previous to the one I removed from being a link.
As for the geolink, you are mistaken. The city and state, as I have formatted them, are each clickable to show that they are separate entries. As it was previously formatted, clicking on either word would have sent it to the city link. My way, both the city and state can be selected. Please let me know if I have adequately answered your concerns. I only wish to improve the use and appearance of this great resource Wikipedia.--SidP 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deaf-mute and recent discourse

hi hi. its interesting that you brought this, as the term 'Deaf Mute' is sort of a focal point for the vlog community right now (other than the SLCC ruckus over at Gallaudet University). See Ella Lentz's two posts about it here and here. The comments in particular supply a wide range of reactions and feels to the term, as well as comparisons. Going to DeafRead and searching for 'Deaf Mute' you'll find an even wider range in response to these two vlogs (Ella Lentz is a pretty big Deaf leader figure, especially in Deafhood) and they will mostly be in ASL if that is your preference.

my personal feelings about the term find some strange ground. i know of those who find the term 'deafness' very offensive (implying deficit, condition, lack, medical, negative) and 'deafhood' (community, brother/sisterhood, state of being, belonging, positive) very acceptable. i know of those who find the term 'hearing impairment', and this includes me, as a phrase that is very offensive as it defines a group by what they aren't/dont have - for instance if you refereed to someone of color as 'not white guy over there', or a woman as 'no penis person over there'. in the end it is a matter of consensus, which in my experience leaves out slurs, cuss words (barring the Fuck article, etc) and the like - so if others feel the same way or can be convinced, then its inclusion or exclusion should be enforced.

i see your link to the NAD [2], which is good, but that is a US resource and not universal, and this is a consensus discussion. how i weigh in at this point is that i think if the book used the phrase 'deaf mute' it would be notable to phrase it as such in the article (with quotes), but perhaps with a (See Deaf) note after it.

the commenter above, saying that wikipedia is not a soapbox, should not be disrupted to make a point and is not censored should still be taken to heart; these are important guidelines. i thank you for inviting me to this discussion. cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ward! I left a comment over on the talkpage for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. If there's anything else I can do, please contact me again. Arria Belli | parlami 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "deaf-mute" is a historic term used to describe Deaf people, when there was ignorance about deafness and people's attitudes toward the Deaf community were negative. It appears thing haven't changed much since there are still some people who think it's acceptable to still describe Deaf people as such. As for the comment that Wiki is not censored, if somebody wrote articles about a Black person or a Chinese person and refered to them in the article using the "N" word or the "C" word, this would be jumped upon immediatley as the terms are offensive. So there is no difference and the term "deaf-mute" should not be used unless in a historical context.--NeilEvans 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on the deaf-mute issue

You're very welcome! Twenex 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want/would you like me to add my vote to the mediation? I couldn't find any information on whether I would be considered a "party" to the dispute. Twenex 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for inviting me to comment on this issue at the talkpage for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. If I can ever be of use to you regerding this matter or any other involving the deaf please notify and I will eagerly contribute my help and viewpoints. Felixboy 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

Good job at sounding the alarm and marshalling the proper response to the deaf-mute issue on the talkpage for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter I was happy to see someone had such a good effect on this still often misunderstood issue. Qaz 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ntennis

Thanks for contacting me. It looks like the issue has been resolved? You suggested a widespread opposition to your changes from "deaf-mute" to "deaf", but I could only see one anon editor engaging in a revert battle. Am I missing something on other pages? As for the Heart is a Lonely Hunter, I haven't read the book but I'm curious to know what words are used by the author to describe the deaf characters. ntennis 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

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

This message delivered: 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Discussion over the expert comment

I am not available to discuss it until saturday. I have already requested the page to be fully protected. I think it will go through. How about we discuss this on Saturday 3/17/2007 with which ever admin is assigned to the page? Thegreyanomaly 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt I was specifically referring to you and Cfortunato. I remember reading in the talk page somewhere that the article was heavily controlled by Christians and thats where I got that idea. I'm sorry if I offended you Thegreyanomaly 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be clearer, this is the segment of the discussion page that gave me that idea. Also, my request for protection occurred at 01:45, 14 March 2007 and your first revert of The Lost Tomb of Jesus occurred at 01:44, 14 March 2007. Given the fact that there is less than a minute in between your edit and my request and given that that revert was the beginning of our clash, it is impossible that my commment was targetted at you Thegreyanomaly 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My religious beliefs are easily available as I have atheist and Buddhist userboxes on my userpage and similarly that is how I determined that some of the opponents of my view were Christian. They had listed themselves as Christian and some had claimed it in the discussion. I was possibly mislead by the statement in the discussion that the page was controlled by Christians. I also had clearly stated in the discussion that I feel that in this case a Christian POV is always going to be NPOV because non-secular Christians would want to believe that the tomb is false. I stated that a secular non-Christian, non-Atheist viewpoint would be preferable because any who fit in that category would not have a belief-decided opinion. I admit I made a minor error by saying some of the people who were editing may or may not have been Christian in my request. I was typing quickly at the time and I made a really stupid error, but nonetheless I DID check to see if the editors were Christian and I admit I should haven't taken "Christians wrote this article" in the discussion as absolute fact. But anyways, I will not be responding to your response until Friday, March 16th at night at the earliest (Pacific Time). I previously had stated that I am busy until the weekend. Thegreyanomaly 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't respond until Friday night, but I will anyways. Now you seem to be assuming things about, which includes an idea that I am anti-Christian. I generally do not check userboxes, but because The Lost Tomb of Jesus is a highly-religion influenced debate I went ahead an did so. It is a fair asssumption that the state of being Christian (primarily towards those who believe in a bodily ressurerction) will influence an individual to being, at some level, against this documentary; this affects the neutrality of Christian arguments. Religion is relevant. I kept my atheistic and my Buddhist beliefs out of my edits. I tried to keep a secular viewpoint by my edits. In the end the page will only affects the people secular to the Jesus issue I edited what I edit to make it clear to people despite what the non-statisticians said the statisticians said that the combination of those names is rare Thegreyanomaly 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not believe I am the only one with a non-biased POV. I believe that it is possible for people to keep their beliefs out of their edits, but I believe in case of such article it would be difficult as it does go against beliefs fundamental to (some/most) form of Christianity. It is clear to me this conversation has reach a dead-end and you have come to the level of assuming things about me "Do you think you are the only person who can make unbiased edits without being influenced by personal religious beliefs?" "I begin by assuming good faith that an editor makes changes to the article because they believe it improves the accuracy of the article, not because they are waging a religious war" (implies my edits were not out of good faith; David Mavorah has no standing in statistics; his statistical claims have no authority and to an extent his work should be as claimable as original-research, which wikipedia does not support), "Apparently you feel a need to find out if an editor is Christian, and then you seem to assume that the religion of your "opponent" is what motivates their edits" (an assumption) "don't frame the conflicts as the Christians versus you" (another assumption. as i have said many times, I believe any secular pov could rebutt the documentary). Please cease your assumptions and this conversation. Thegreyanomaly 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions and such

Thanks for doing RC patrol, I know it's like chinese water torture, but hey, someone has to do it.

Anyway, on your reversion on Impressionism, you reverted to a bad version. I appreciate the fact that you're looking out for this, but when you revert, always go to history to check whether or not you got all the revisions, and to see if you were, in fact, the reverter. You did revert, however, there were three revisions you didn't touch.

I got 'em. Don't worry about that, but just be a little more careful in the future. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Pumeleon^T 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dorin danila

I blanked the Dorin Danilă article because the real name of the romanian chief of the naval forces is Dorin Dănilă. I want to delete the Dorin Danilă article and the Dorin Dănilă art. will become the correct one,cheers. Eurocopter Tigre 16:05, 17 March 2007

re:Dorin Danila

I will ask an admin to delete that article, only the admins are allowed to delete articles. Eurocopter Tigre 16:19, 17 March 2007

alia lahlou

is there a way to be given some time to improve the article? Harlot

Bandar Torkaman

I added no information to Bandar Torkaman. When I came across the article it was a complete mess. I simple fixed up what was already there. See this diff: [3] Thanks.Azerbaijani 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sure.Azerbaijani 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for reverting the rubbish on my userpage :) Pseudomonas 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too --Audiovideo 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Yaconelli

That's cool. You should have pulled it on your first visit. I was not linking to it as a commercial venture, but as one of the better examples of the content of his work that I had found live on the web. Alastair Cutting 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, especially with quotes. But you might want to check the accuracy of the quote. It doesn't sound correct. Ward3001 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you were right. Someone must've changed the quote at some point. I've fixed it. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. K. Butterfield again

What I did, was in essence offering a compromise between you and the editor from 143.231.249.141 (which is an interesting IP.) Now, you added the words you wanted, phenotype (and man, that is not very popular in Europe, it's a jump-word) So then you added in what the IP had removed, in addition to my suggested compromise (which should be clear enough for any one who wondered why he is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. ) Meaning you now got to say it twice. Also, the reference to the talk page gives in my opinion not much sense: it's obvious everybody knows what the discussion is all about. Greswik 11:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha In Paris

Can you explain this edit on the Aretha In Paris article? [4]. Just wondering why you would reinstate about 300 lines into an article that don't even directly relate to the subject. Thanks - Cloudz679 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Test Edit" after I playfully put in a photo of a woman with "Nappy Hair" in Imus's page. Won't happen again, sorry about that.--Bluefield 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've adding a link to Avril Bandaids (http://www.avrilbandaids.com) to the Avril Lavigne article - though an unofficial site, Bandaids is currently being used as Avril Lavigne's online E-team. The guidelines also say that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" should be added. Bandaids contains a database of over 2000 Avril Lavigne articles and an extensive "Avrilography" section with a large amount of other meaningful, relevant content.

I also posted other information into this article that was deleted and I'm curious to know the reason for that. In one area it was marked that a citation was needed and I added a citation that was then deleted. I also posted new information about Avril's new single reaching #2 on the UK charts - the highest an Avril single has ever reached in the UK - and this was deleted as well.

xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticrebelle (talk • contribs)

Back to Basics Re-release

That whole page is completely wrong. That is why I blanked it. It was just some silly fan wishing and hoping for a re-release. I'm trying to help Wikipedia out by only have REAL facts. Leaving that page there takes down Wikipedia's credibility way DOWN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Los besos (talk • contribs)

Back to Basics Re-release

Alright, but I'm sitting here trying to help out this site, but you continue to let false information be posted on this source.Los besos 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced template

Personally, I don't really care whether the {{unreferenced}} template is placed at the top of an article or at the bottom. However, given that the template's page clearly says that "there is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page" I don't think your edit summary ("placed unref template in proper place; removed References header because there are no references") is quite correct. No big deal, though - just wanted to point that odd fact (lack of consensus of where to place a widely-used and rather important template) out to you! --ElKevbo 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Phillips (gunman)

Look man, I've been a wikipedian for a long time, you don't need to keep critisizing me just because you're watching the page I created like a hawk. First you try to delete it, even though I told you Al Jazeera had confirmed it, now you are all up in my face about whether or not this lady was a hostage?? They found her tied up with duct tape on her mouth, is that not a hostage? I mean, I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I'm 27 years old and I don't need you to tell me how wikipedia works. Thanks. Stubbleboy 02:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

natalie portman

it says she's bi right in the article under "relationships". 67.172.61.222 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

links?

what innapropriate links? thats relevant trivia and i didnt put in any links i cited my additions and provided a link to a possible future article which is likely based on an existing film, most films are considered notable. i didnt add in any advertisement i just ran into some movie titles that i thought would pepper the trivia sections of the movies they parodied. wikipedia is not censored so what does it matter if they linked to porno movies, i had to provide the source, or would you rather i used the IMdB?71.142.88.173 04:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) and i dont have to discuss such additions although you should discuss them when removing cited content, i even used the correct <ref>[]</ref>format71.142.88.173 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) i was signed out by the way i am^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 04:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Scent of a Woman, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Ward3001 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do, but I'll make more of an effort in the future.--RobNS 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits On Lolita Page

I wanted to clarify with you the reasons for the extensive editing I have attempted to do on the page on Lolita (i'm not sure if this is the wrong way to do it or anything, so apologies if it is). The person whose version is the previous has inserted a lot of irrelevant comments in a pseudo-literary style that conflicts with with the encyclopaedic tone it is supposed to have. The British English spelling was in the original and I did not bother to change it, so if it is necessary for any reason to use American English then that makes no difference to me. I wish to point out that a large amount of material that wasn't changed by the aforementioned person is also mine and has also been accepted.88.111.4.239 18:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Revolver66[reply]

The use of British English was already in the version that I edited, of which I saved a copy. "Pseudo-literary" might be over-the-top, but as examples of what I meant:

"...raised in his father's Riviera hotel after his young mother is killed (picnic, lightning)." "Picnic, lightning" isn't explanatory enough, it doesn't really mean anything (likewise: "...only after first seeing her twelve-year-old daughter Dolores (Dolly, Lolita, Lola, Lo, L)"). In fact, it isn't really relevant information at all. There is also a very melodramitic feel to the current version chaotic, desperately, but I realise this is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the version of the synopsis that was used in February (or so) of this year was much better, but has been irrevocably changed. .88.111.4.239 17:35, 05 May 2007 (UTC)Revolver66[reply]

Frequency (film)

[5] I think I have found a compromise. See what you think. - LuckyLouie 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate image

Sorry- I didn't notice the second image farther down the page. All I noticed was the image link at the top that pointed nowhere. johnpseudo 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

Please help me make a page about John Gordon a Republican running for President i have all the info i just don't know how to set it up. Please just set up a page for me and I will put in the info. Mason789 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Portman

Sorry about that, I was deleting slander along the lines of "poor man's Keira Knighley" and helped myself to delete uncited stuff along the way. If you wish to keep GA, I advise that you keep citing stuff for the article rather than rely on another. Alientraveller 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A retort from the user you just reverted

Hey, thanks a lot, man. I don't know why you just encroached upon the perfectly good edits I made to the Phil McGraw article. "Unsourced statements"? WTF? I put the "citation needed" template in there! "Unclear statements"? Nothing was unclear! The bulleted statements were quotes! What's wrong with you? I demand to put those edits back! Hmph! >:( --Wykypydya 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The information about the Dr. Phil soundboard is correct. It is self-evident that this exists by visiting the Web site. I got the quotes directly from that application, and they are quoted verbatim, so there can't be any lack of clarity here. Would it make it a cited statement if I provided a link to that online application? And the statement about the "Red-eye" movie is correct because I watched it and that fact is implied in the dialog. It is wrong and deletionist of you to remove unsourced statements that are explicitly declared as unsourced, as the whole point of the "citation needed" template is to allow such statements to be there without being misleading and to give other editors the opportunity to fill in the missing citation (or verify the statement). The "citation needed" template is meant to be proactive so it is fixed later, not to flag content for automatic deletion. --Wykypydya 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Valley Nitehawks

The logo issue has been fixed... I am cleaning up the bot's SPAM. DMighton 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coloboma

You undid my edits to Coloboma. I agree that the bits about Madeleine McCann may not belong there - I would like to discuss this on the talk page. Please leave your comment there. I have readded part of my original edit, however, as it contained valid, and sourced facts about the incidence of coloboma. Again, I'd appreciate yours (and everyone else's) comments on the talk page. Lilac Soul 12:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ink blot

The issue has been brought formally through the OTRS system. I'm protecting the article until the ticket has been resolved. I must remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, and if you have copyright questions, you must bring them up through the Images for Deletion process. Furthermore, I should inform you that copyrighted images may sometimes be allowed on Wikipedia through the fair use doctrine. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, thank you for your interest in this article. Following the article split there may be some dead links. If you find any, please fix them rather than removing them, as I have done here. TerriersFan 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Ruth Graham pic

Thank you for your timely response. I wasn't sure about the copywrite, but I felt the lady deserved her picture in her article, mostly because her husband is a very classy individual and is not one of those teleevangalists who will cheaply whore themeselves just for money. Billy Graham is seriously concerned about the souls of this nation and because his wife didn't have a photo for her article, I felt it nessicary to have a photo to go with her article. Elwin Blaine Coldiron 03:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled protagonists

Oops. I am going to go through now and replace that with [[Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists]]. Thanks for the heads up. — Ocatecir ^T 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have conformed to what was stated

As the quotations I change now are not that of titles. As I understand it that was the only thing wrong with my corrections. If that is not so than I must inform you that correct grammatical form in English is that quotes are on the outside of punctuation marks such as periods, commas, colons, and semicolons. I have conformed to to that of titles however.

Use of English

I noticed you had left a notice on my talk page. I usually use British spellings but since Frequency is an American film, I thought it best to use American spellings (and terms). Sorry if I slipped up a little. :-) -- My NameIs URL 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Goretti

well, hello , first. I deleted a link in Maria Goretti that was linking to an advertising page or at least sends pop up that crashed my browser. Should have mentionned it. User:Shagada

Hannibal Rising

HIhi. I was actually reverting link spam by 60.240.98.88, who's sole objective seems to be to add scenefilms to popular film articles. When I was reverting Hannibal, I noticed two other links were also questionable (one linked to a forum, the other to a fan site of one of the actresses). Perhaps using the justification of non-official was incorrect (I left imdb etc), non-notable may have been better. Scenefilms is definitely non-notable, and falls under WP:EL's links to avoid ("Links mainly intended to promote a website.") but I've added back the forum on reflection. Apologies if I appear over-zealous, I've had to remove a lot of links people simply add to promote their own websites. Hope you understand! Thanks! Fin ©™ 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Which instance (of claiming citation needed) are you speaking of? Dogru144 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the apology. Dogru144 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moving on

Okay, we both had a little snipe at each other. I was annoyed because when you deleted the trivia you didn't move it, and I'd spent a while getting the Banksy links. And yes, I 'inexplicably' (or 'accidentally') removed the link. Which you spotted and restored. Well done.

Shall we move on? Hand of friendship and all that? raining girl 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Kimball

Thank you for courteously pointing out my mistake. I had reverted from 141.157.223.216's contribs list and I missed your revert. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach

Dear Ward3001! Thank you for your support. I saw that, but I hope, we will hit the mark with many other users, to delete these pictures. One of these pictures' discussion page, I've just seen, that the community of the wikipedia had got a letter from Hans Huber yet...... So the intention is delete the pictures! :) Thanks for your perception! Dorgan 08:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ward3001.

Please, let the pic there! tnx! bye!:)--DrugoNOT 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting three days is to give others an opportunity to comment. It does not imply agreement if there are no comments, especially when a consensus was already established. ...... In any event, since I have now expressed disagreement, there is no change in consensus with one opinion in favor of changing and one opinion opposed to changing. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the dynamics of discusions, and how people get tired. I personally very much appreciate the consensus that you helped achieve. I also think that the current consensus suffers from the same problem of people getting tired, and is not stable. I have read what was discussed before and I come fresh, plus I have not seen anyone propose the same thing I am proposing. With the benefit of hindsight it may be that if image replacement had been proposed before, a much stronger consensus would be in place, instead of what looks to be a compromise by exaustion. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to find the fake inkblot that was used a long time ago. Another "semi-fake" image that was used is this one, which is a blackened version of Card I. Very similar argument: use an inkblot that is not a Rorschach inkblot. This (and the fake blot I referred to above) were considerations in all of the controversy and debate.

I still strongly favor leaving the image as it is now. One reason is that I don't want to start an edit war that will result in the current image ending up at the top of the page without the click-to-see option. That has happened in the past.

Don't make any changes unless other opinions are expressed and a clear change of consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk)

I think it's safe to state this common objective. If and only if consensus can be reached the rorschach inkblot should not be in the wikipedia. I think this addresses your concerns about the edit war. Because other people would see changes as couter-consensus. In hindsight it was not a good idea to write my last comment. A big problem with the rorschach talk page is the lack of structure. I will do some changes to the section I created. I'll add an objections section and move some stuff around. I hope you like it and please let me know on my page if you don't and I'll keep making changes.

It is my intention to stick to the wikipedia policies and traditions. And I think they are sound so that do favor that objective I stated. After your comments, I intend to leave the discussion and proposal open for quite a while.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Testing edit comment

You sent me this message: "Please do not add information to a technical article, such as Psychological testing, in which you have little or no knowledge. The Halstead-Reitan is not a full battery. Ward3001 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)"

I have a PhD in clinical psychology and am licensed to practice, so your comment is incorrect. I had thought to take out the reference to "full battery assessment" entirely; this term is not commonly used any more in this day of controlled cost and managed care. However, someone did go to to the trouble of putting this in and having a reference to it, so I was conservative in my edit. I could not think of any other "full battery" type reference than H-R. Indeed, some organizations do have specific requirements, e.g., VA, for particular assessments, but those admin requirements don't have anything to do with general practice terminology, rather are administrative. I was in the process of adding more up to date information, using the SPA (Society for Personality Assessment - Division of APA) and APA's more general info. Would you support removal of the "full battery" reference completely, b/c that is really what I'd like to do. Fremte 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would consider being a little less abrupt in your posts to others' talk pages and refrain from stating conclusions until you have data on which to base them. Such would be consistent with a data-driven approach versus relying on initution. It would involve minimal psychological acumen to anticipate that such abruptness would not be particularly well-received by other users. This response is only to respectully provide you with some feedback re this exchange with you Fremte 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln assassination

Please note the section you've re-added violates our policies on WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. Rklawton 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate any of those. Rklawton has requested that the Lincoln flag section be made into a new article. After discussing it thoroughly with him, he agreed that the only problem with the content was its location in the Lincoln assasination article. I am currently working on a new article. Thank you for trying to repost the information though.

(MandyBarberio 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. I made a couple of mistakes in my earlier edits & comments. We need the spam link because the content is copyrighted GDFL to that site. The information itself is (may be) sourced to other sites. I think the information is too detailed and trivial for the assassination article, but a new article might solve that problem. Rklawton 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your support. I agree that there is not enough information for a new article, but I am doing some research to try to add to it. (MandyBarberio 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And yes the article had 2 relevant references. Originally I had placed these under external links, but after the citation notice, I moved them under the Lincoln Flag section. I was trying to figure out how to cite them in the same manner as the rest of the page (I'm new to Wikipedia), but before I could, the section was gone. (MandyBarberio 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the citing info. (MandyBarberio 12:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have rewritten and expanded on my original article- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Assassination_Flags. I put in footnotes, but I wanted to make sure they looked right. I wasn't sure if there was a way to designate a number to a source so the same sources don't repeat in the list. Let me know please! Thanks! (MandyBarberio 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have a problem with those changes. Thanks! (MandyBarberio 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I-35 bridge collapse

Thanks for the head's up. If no one removes it in the interim, I'll be sure it's gone once this ceases to be a major story (I'll say that relative to local news since it may fall off of CNN before the rescue effort ends). --Bobak 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to me

Why did i get a warning for my edit on Sigmund Freud? The guy was a Jewish supremacists, i can give you many sources to prove it. But let face it: Wikipedia is owned by Jews so it wouldn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk • contribs)

Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique

I also see your point. As a consequence, I also made a slight change. Check out the revised version if you like. --Da Vynci 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion in Međugorje

I have updated the merge discussion in Međugorje. patsw 17:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taylor momsen pic

I was under the impression that copyrighted pics were allowed under a claim of fair-use. I've seen many examples of fair-use pics on wikipedia and was just following their example. Also, I didn't mean to imply that the pic was owned by imdb, that's where I found it but they obviously don't own the copyright because imdb wasn't the creater of the image. If I linked it to her official site would that be enough? Ospinad 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"if copyrighted pics were allowed under a claim of fair-use then what's the point of having a copyright law?"

Using an image under fair-use is not a violation of copyright the same way that taking a vid cap of a movie is not a violation of copyright. If I were to make hundreds of copies of a DVD that I owned and sold them for a profit that would be a violation of copyright. But I am not making any money off of these pics and I am not preventing anyone from making money off of them so why is it still wrong?

"Examples of unacceptable use: An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like."

Show me a picture of a person that doesn't show what s/he looks like. That's what pictures of people do. That's what pictures of anything do. They show what the thing looks like.

"And finally, did it occur to you to wonder why you have gotten frequent warnings when you upload images? Please err on the side of caution. If you're not sure that an image is OK to put in an article, then don't put it in.

No, it's never occurred to me to wonder why. The other times it was because I didn't add a fair use rationale immediately after or at the same time that I uploaded the image. Once I did, I never got any problem. Actually this is the first time I've gotten a reaction like this. Ospinad 01:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being such a pain, I had to take a shot, you know? Hey, is there anyway for me to just delete the image myself? Ospinad 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellas

Hey,

Sorry about that. I know about citing sources, and thought I had put it in. It was 2:00 AM where I live. --MosheA 17:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

timeline

as i recall tere was a fairly indepth plot summery before and it was cut down to nothing after a while i'll leave the timeline up untill we reach a consencus on the matter --Manwithbrisk 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil McGraw

If you want to edit Phil McGraw or any semi-protected article, why not register with a user name? It's simple. Ward3001 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I have no interest in purchasing an account. 199.125.109.52 13:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No thanks, I have no interest in purchasing an account." Registering is free, and it only takes about 30 seconds. You don't even have to give an email address if you don't want to. Ward3001 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. If an IP user can't do it, I'm not interested. 199.125.109.52 04:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French link

Amanda Bynes is an actress of international fame. Why prohibit the French links ? I do not understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lauravivier (talk • contribs) 11:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Starlight Express

Please do not revert. See the talk page. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Hey, just by the by, could you remember to use {{Userlinks|username}} to report users at UAA rather than just putting a link to their page? Makes it easier for admins to access contributions, talk pages and so on. Cheers :) SGGH ^speak! 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the difference is between the username template and the above userlinks one, just seems to be what they want used. *shrugs* It just gives us admins an easier time! Hehe. Happy editing! SGGH ^speak! 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21 and suckpuppets

If you have proof this guy is socking, and doing so in an abusive manner, then post it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, you can't go putting that sock template on his page. It's just not fair. --UsaSatsui 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21 and sockpuppetry

I'm considering trying to make a case against Tweety21 for sockpuppetry. I don't have any doubt that she used multiple IPs to vandalize and cast multiple votes in the Arden Wohl debate, but I need evidence. I already having very clear evidence of her using 142.205.212.5 to vandalize, but I was wondering whether you had any evidence when you indicated that Tweety21 also voted as 74.110.247.117. If so I'd appreciate your passing it on to me. Please note that it's Tweety21's (and alias's) behavior that I'm trying to get to the bottom of. If the Arden Wohl article eventually makes it I have no problem with that. In fact, I think the most damage to the article's chances of survival were inflicted by Tweety21. Thanks. Ward3001 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have any incontrovertible evidence, but she didn't really try to hide her identity (if so, she did a terrible job). She edits the same articles from all of those IPs, uses the same :O) emoticon in her comments, even signs things "Tweety". The multiple !votes really seemed more like an ignorance of WP policy (something she appears to do willfully) than an underhanded attempt at sneaky sockpuppetry. Let me know if I can help you out with anything else. Precious Roy 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take back the idea that it might not be sneakiness. The new comment at the DRV seems to take care of any attempts at WP:AGF. Precious Roy 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Tweety21 and sock puppets== hahaha sounds like a cartoon...you and Precious need to get out more and live a little..instead of losing sleep at night wondering about sock puppets.. Cheers! Are you dudes for real?? seriously!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupeteers and other world crisises

I live in a cave in Afganistan, with 25 husbands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I feel real bad about making Tweety21 worry about our personal lives; it's rather inconsiderate of us both. I hope you're proud of yourself. Precious Roy 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed and turned all night thinking about it ... no wait ... maybe I was thinking about telling my wife that someone suggested I find a girlfriend. Ward3001 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my wife didn't take to kindly to the suggestion, either (I figured it was worth a shot, you know?). Precious Roy 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

If she wishes to withdraw her request for a rename she can do so. It is wrong to reinstate it. By editing pattern it appears that she is also User:142.205.212.5. The correct place for this sort of thing is WP:CHECKUSER and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Secretlondon 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding her to suspected sockpuppets. Secretlondon 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Freud

Hello Ward3001! How are you? I am RS1900. I read the biography of Sigmund Freud on Wikipedia. I think many criticism of Freud was totally unfair. It is ridiculous to see that the comments of non-notable clown like Richard Webster are taken seriously. I think the biography should be improved. Thank you. RS1900 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eysenck was a notable psychologist. However, he was a supporter of astrology, a pseudoscience. In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". I don't respect Eysenck. RS1900 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include the views of Eysenck on Freud. Eysenck published the book Astrology: Science or Superstition?. He supported astrology, however; that doesn't minimizes the importance of his opinions on Freud. RS1900 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False revert warning

I did exactly 3 reverts, which is "leagal". You gave me a falce warning. :) The Merciful 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count again, pal. You reverted at 08:06, 12:07, 12:11, and 12:43, all on September 13. Ward3001 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

This is agustinaldo replying on your UNFAIR revert edits.

Listen, I have actually SEEN "Shriek if You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th", "Galaxy Quest" and "Not Another Teen Movie". It's information I gained by actuallt WATCHING THE MOVIES.

Did you watch those movies? I think not, cause if you did, you would agree with me on this and not revertthe articles at your whim.

Not, if you think youshould revert the edits because what I said isn't relevant to the article, that's one thing, but calling me a liar when i state ACTUAL FACTS, now that's insulting.

Not only that, check the "movie connectionS" page on imdb. That proves that I'm no liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Ping Re: Pulp Fiction

You reverted a good-faith edit to this page that I believe improved the article. Help me understand why? Thanks. --- tqbf 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tweety21's vandalism

WP:ANB... [is] a bit more complicated and I haven't had time to prepare it, but I think if necessary I'll do it because she's really getting out of control.

Agreed. You can count on me for any necessary assistance; I haven't any real experience with WP:ANB but just let me know what I can do to help. Precious Roy 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More on Tweety21

Yeah, I had seen it, but thanks for the heads-up. I don't imagine she'll get anywhere with her ridiculous claims but you never know. Precious Roy 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet-sational

Who could this be??? I'm not gonna deal with this until tomorrow but I thought you might want to see. Pr 2.0 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one sock that I wouldn't worry about. Precious Roy 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21 redux

I wasn't gonna bother you with the new sock, but see User:Wiccawikka, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Precious Roy and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive sockpuppet is back. She's been up to her tricks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coven (short film), unsurprisingly. Precious Roy 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the assist. It's annoying trying to figure out where to go with this stuff (ANI seems to take quite a while; do I open I a new sock report?). This time I tried checkuser and that's moving along at a glacial pace (though I'm not really familiar with it so perhaps that's par for the course). Anyhow, thanks again. Precious Roy 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Do not revert until a consensus is reached. I admit that is an aproach that does have some followers. Not aparently includeing you however. But please if you think my actions warrent it report me to WP:AIV.Geni 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the consensus you claim did not exist. Traditionaly it would be considered difficult to start an edit war that is already ongoing. The closest you could get is to start a second seperate one over a different issue on the same page.Geni 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please actualy read Wikipedia:Vandalism.Geni 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't take my comment "whatever you or I might think of them" the wrong way. I reckon we might be close to quietening things down, just trying to keep the peace here. OK? MarkAnthonyBoyle 10:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ward, This is really off topic, but I've been watching your discussion with Diego and I wondered if you might have some tips for me. You seem to know a bit about psychology. I'm doing a Masters on Magic Thinking, and I'm wondering if you have any pointers on that topic? Maybe you could email me? I'd be grateful for any help. MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest Ward. There is a page about it here: Magical thinking. I've got the J G Frazer. I'm particularly interested in |Bruce Hood's work on | superstition. This kind of a murky topic (perfect for a Masters!!). It has relevence for how we revere art works (my particular angle on this). I know there have been a few pieces written about it over the years, just wondering if there might be something in the literature that you knew of. Cheers MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, worth a shot! Thanks anyway. Cheers MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Awarded

Dear Ward3001. As a relative Wikipedia beginner, I learned a lot from your intervention the other day, due to an involuntary mistake of mine. I share your views on vandalism, & think very highly of effective page patrolling. So enjoy. --Nielspeterq 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jarvik

i didnt know how else to reach you so sorry..but i didnt do anything to robert jarvik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.144.130 (talk • contribs)

Photo

I spent a long time colorizing that photo and you just took it down. You are mean. And I didn't give him blond hair. I mostly just colored his suit and added a little flesh to his skin. Also, I don't see how it is original research to color the photo to make it more realistic. COGENCY. Put it back please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlDorn (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply here. Ward3001 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-alert

You have no right to be displaying work place id-as per prior concern-will be putting in a wiki-alert, I belive you are just doing this as you are ticked I got unlblocked and you are trying to make it like I am "vandalizing" by deleting private info to get me blocked again-pick on someone else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference material

I compiled an annotated list of Tweety21's edits (including her various IPs and socks). Feel free to refer to it (or add your own comments). Precious Roy 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now. I had gone through that one's edits before it happened. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! Precious Roy 23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schonemann

The heritability articles criticized by Schonemann are all from after the mid-70s, not before. Whoever keeps writing that his criticisms are from the early 70s is wrong (as easily varified by checking the reference list). In fact the majority of his papers that criticized heritability estimates are from the late 80s, 90s. Further, the other scholars who criticize heritability estimates all published their papers after the year 2000. In referrence to work done WELL after the 70s.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 70.68.179.142 (talk) is apparently the same person as User:Charles669, who has been blocked indefinitely. (See comments from these two users on my talk page). --Crusio 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Jmlk 1 7 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films

It is POV violation to use that in an intro, plain and simple. The first sentence just needs to explain what it is. 70.226.81.167 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hai

You're on the internets and stuff—you're the hottest thing since LOLcats! Precious Roy 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous - Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

Please don't call me "overzealous" in edit notes. Labeling other editors like that isn't constructive. We can discuss any edits that you or I make on the talk page for the article, and maybe you can avoid labeling me there, and discuss the edits and the article instead. I started a new subsection on the talk page for discussion of such things. Rray 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology on my talk page. I've replied to your discussion on the talk page in the Six Degrees of Bacon article. Rray 15:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I stand correctedAndycjp (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon number

Someone suggested that Bacon number should be merged with the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon article. I lean toward agreeing that this should be merged, but since you've got an interest in the subject too, maybe you could provide your opinion too? Rray 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hey, im really sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out too, i didnt even realise that guide was on here. (Neostinker 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sigh

Seems like someone forgot to take their meds today, huh? Precious Roy 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill

None of those links you haphazardly threw at me apply to the situation. If you want to bitch at me for being too WP:BOLD and following various guidelines, fine, but put some sensible thought into it instead of stupidly threatening to accuse me of vandalism. ' 16:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how does WP:OWN apply to anything here? Am I asserting ownership over articles, now? WP:CON is a description of how Wikipedia works, not a barrier to being bold or editing, and I suggest you learn what vandalism is before accusing people of doing such. Hint: It's based on the intent of harming Wikipedia, not based on your personal liking of another editor's edits.

Put together a coherent argument that actually applies next time, please. ' 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me for "vandalism". Perhaps then, this idiotic argument will cease. ' 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

This is almost completely unrelated to she-who-will-not-be-named: I did a make-over on the Bijou Phillips article and an anon IP keeps re-adding "socialite" to the intro paragraph list (model, actress, etc). Thing is, the article describes a socialite as "not a professional entertainer", which as an established film actress and musician, Phillips obviously is. I've tried to open a dialog on the talk page (though edit summaries and in notes left on the IP's talk page) but he just keep reverting without comment (and at this point they've broken 3RR, which I have warned the anon about). If you were in my shoes, what would be your next step(s)? I've never been in this position before and was hoping you might have some input. You can respond either here on on my talk page. Thanks, Pr 2.0 13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doy! I knew about 3RR but didn't realize there was a specific board to report it on. Thanks for the assist. Pr 2.0 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'

Apostrophe's about to violate 3RR on Superman-Prime, I suggest reporting him if you haven't done so already. --CmdrClow 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia (film)

I think that section amounts to original research and I tagged it as such. Ideally, the article would not need spoiler tags because that section which goes too far in-depth (WP:FICT) into undocumented theories and comparisons (WP:OR) would not exist. The debate about spoiler tags is simply distracting from a deeper issue with the article. Axem Titanium 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure. Take your time. WP:DEADLINE, right? Haha. Axem Titanium 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach comments

Thanks for your note. I am fairly new to this enterprise and was indeed not aware of the history of copyright discussion. Apologies offered. Since you also feel that showing images of the Rorschach is not proper, however, I hope you will take a look at my comments today. I have accepted the fact that copyright and legal arguements are now moot (Actually, I know Jurgen Hogrefe personally and I am sure that he has some additionals arguements, but those are likely to be pretty technical and very unlikely to prevail in a loose and broadly international context like the Wikipedia). But I do think that Wikipedia should hold itself to a reasonably high ethical standard. So arguments such as "We are going to do it because we can," should not be considered sufficient. And arguments that "We are participating in the desctruction of a venerable tool," should be given due consideration. There is a "take down" link attached to the present image display link. It is specific to copyright concerns and is, consequently, now closed. Do you think my "countervailing interests" and a call for an explicit rationale for display might be a sufficient reason to reopen the "take down" disussion with a new rationale?Plskmn 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "I'm new here," so I'll take your advice and not push the discussion further in the article. Two points; By "take down" I was referring to the link one sees when clicking to see the card image. It documents a controversy regarding a move to take the view image link out of the article. It makes it clear that the issue is "copyright." And it makes it clear that _that_ issue is dead and not to be reopened. So my question was whether that (internal, specific to the image, not open on the main article) page might be re-opened with regard to the issues I raised (countervailing need to know versus professional concern). Again, howevever, I won't push it if you feel that simply inflames things. The other point is whether the agreed consensus--that the single first card image alone is to be shown--can be enforced by those responsible for the page. There are now several external links at the bottom of the article that show more, including one--a Spanish languge version--that, at the link itself, is explicit in stating that it reveals all detail of all 10 images. Can such a violation of consensus be handled "off line"? I appreciate an experienced viewpoint here.Plskmn 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ET

Unless you didn't know, leads don't require citations. Alientraveller 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." This means the lead generally doesn't need cites as it is a summary of the article, and the article cites the information. If you look at the article, you'll see critics acclaiming the film. If you want, I could source that to the RT consensus listing, but overall, it's not necessary. Alientraveller 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong, because the article shows the film has been acclaimed by the AFI, EW, Empire and so on. Anyway, it's not important, E.T. as an acclaimed film is not something to be challenged anytime soon. This is an old debate and frankly it's not an article on anything controversial. Many leads don't have cites because it's cited in the article. Alientraveller 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying it doesn't make it so. A statement as sweeping as "greatest film" needs clarity. Ward3001 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of films are considered great. Look, it's hardly something worth being fussy over. It's a fact lots of people love this film. How about popular then? Alientraveller 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...but I give up. I do really appreciate your support. Precious Roy 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please contact me via email, I have a brief message I'd like to leave you. I'm not keeping this secret from JzG or anything (if he cares, I can CC him), I'd just like not to WP:BEANS anything. --Yamla 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deafblindness

I thought it better to move the discussion to the article's own talk page. Hope you don't mind, I copied your comments from my talk page to there. Thanks. ntennis 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WF

Yah, my bad, I'm kinda tired right now. I've put the article up for speedy deletion. Thanks for the notice! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a fan

Ah, the internet, where we always meet the fun people. In any case, you may notice there was a bit of a vandalism spree on your userpage, recently; just thought I should extend the offer, if you'd like me to delete those edits from the page history, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, fair enough. :) Feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do, in that area. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Ward3001: User:RockMFR semi-protected your user page. NHRHS2010 talk 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but it was really User:RockMFR that protected your userpage. I am not an administrator so I can't protect a page. NHRHS2010 talk 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Kim Possible Movie

Hey Ward, I reverted your revert of the earlier revert of the revert of the redirect (or something like that) to Kim_Possible_Movie:_So_the_Drama. There may be real-world information available about this, backed up by independent, verifiable third party sources, etc etc. You don't need me obviously to plaster stupid links wantonly on your talk page, but I am confident that you don't support having an article which currently consists only of content which explicitly falls outside of our criteria for establishing notability: viz. WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIVIA as well as the guidelines at WP:FICT and thus contravenes consensus which, as you know always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. If you can add the necessary content to establish notability, please do so. Otherwise I suggest this remain a revert until such content can be reasonably adduced and emended. Eusebeus 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue about requiring real-world content has been discussed at WP:WAF and WP:FICT (see talk page of both for the ongoing discussion - you should certainly consider weighing in there). Episode-specific reccommendationsa re at WP:EPISODE. Also, the issue of global versus local consensus, as noted at WP:CON, can be found both there as well as at the WP:AN/I discussion on the specific topic of redirecting tv series episodes. As you are aware, the aggregate of local opinion (e.g. at the Kim Possible talk page) can never outweigh community consensus about policy and guidelines; if you disagree you need to change consensus at the global level. This obviously attains if you think about it in terms of, say, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM or [[[WP:NPOV]]; WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT are naturally no different. Eusebeus 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Matarazzo

I thought it was allowed when it is a picture of a character that they played and not a picture of themself? Ospinad (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok, so the pictures in these articles should also be removed?

Tom Cruise
Nicole Kidman
Dakota Fanning

I'm talking about the last one in those three.

Lindsay Lohan has 4 non free images

Steven Speilberg has 5.

Ospinad (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, I see you still haven't removed any of those images. What are you waiting for? Ospinad (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

The Beatles Hamburg subsection: i was definetly too fast in putting those informations in a such important article and i apologize, however a personal website (as you stated) was not used and I dont want to be accused of such behaviour. One of the websites was the official site of Croatia Records (ex- Jugoton), formerly the biggest record label in former Yugoslavia which also released The Beatles for the domestic market; the second site was the Belgrade-based political affairs weekly magazine "Vreme" (editorial board), and the third was Ivo Robić's official website not maintained personaly by him, cause he passed away in 2000, but by a Zagreb-based museum devoted in his honour. Unfortunatelly the last website has some technical problems so I had to use that poor google cash version. I dont object about your rightful action, I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. I will try to find English language sources --Dzole (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one

Quote: "No one" is preferred in English. Almost no one uses noöne. Please stop. Ward3001 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will. Thank you for your concern. We should use noöne. It is better. I think. I am en-N. End.

The Beatles and "All Those Years Ago"

I object to the wording you reverted to because it wrongly conveys the impression that the three surviving Beatles used the occasion of their bandmate's death to reconcile old differences and come together to record a new song in the same recording space. Unless I am mistaken, this was not the case, and, unless I am forgetting something, never was until work on the Anthology project. Please explain the reason to preserve misleading wording when more accurate wording is available. Robert K S (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! Robert K S (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing flags

Can I make a suggestion? when you are removing flags can you at least mark your edits as "minor" that way if I choose to I can keep them off my watchlist by clicking "hide minor edits". You just happened to hit on every page I was watching and nearly doubled my watchlist in a few minutes, lol. I hope that's not too much to ask. Ospinad (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also have a strange way choosing which pictures you remove. I see you just edited Vivien Cardone, Kristen Stewart‎, Emma Roberts, Jordan Todosey‎ & Amy Castle when you removed their flags. As you were doing that you took out the non free pictures in Vivien Cardone and Amy Castle but left the one in Jordan Todosey and the two in Emma Roberts and the two in Kristen Stewart. Why do you do that? Ospinad (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O I C. For some reason I thought you took removing non free images more seriously than that. Oh well Ospinad (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Griffith Show

Hi. Regarding the trivia/cultural references in the The Andy Griffith Show article, I'd like to remove the entire section if possible. I try not to go crazy and delete an entire trivia section because, inevitably, someone who loves trivia will add it back which is why I try to respect the pop culture reference sections in articles even though they are basically trivia facts. Re-tagging it and citing it for references doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, meaning that people rarely cite trivia or cultural references section and leaving it in the article with a tag leaves it in the category of having trivia to begin with. As a volunteer with WP:WPTCU, leaving it tagged sort of shoots the whole project in the foot. Personally, I don't think the info adds anything to the article and it is unsourced which basically makes it subject for deletion. I know two editor agreeing certainly isn't a consensus, but seeing as the talk page is fairly inactive, if you agree with me about removing the content, I'd like to do so ASAP. The two of us agreeing on a matter will probably go down a lot better than one person removing content. I've consulted editor assistance regarding the matter and so far, I've been told to remove it. Please let me know what you think about it. Thanks. 07:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not malicious, sorry.Andycjp (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

Gee, it's an obvious fork of the article, and I said so in my edit comment. Curious Blue (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita

The part I deleted in the Lolita article was certainly a legitimate edit. I removed the "Trivia sections are discouraged etc." tag on the section of the article called "Influence on Language and Popular Culture." That's definitely a valid part of any respectable article on the book, and is certainly not a "Trivia" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.154.236 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hemings

Thanks for your comments on use of names. The original text "a male in Jefferson's line, possibly (but not conclusively) Jefferson himself" was technically ambiguous; many "males in Jefferson's line" are "Jefferson". In my view Thomas was best (shorter than repeating Thomas Jefferson), but the full forename+surname is perfectly clear. The minor wording and parenthesis is trivial. My reason for contacting you is to ask you where the Wikipedia rules on names that would rule out plain "Thomas" are; I looked but didn't find them. I'm not trying to dispute that the rule exists; I might actually propose that exceptions should be made when clearer, particularly when several people of the same name exist. I've changed things like "Smith's father" to "John Smith" or "John" (Smith's father is also Smith) in several places. (Examples are my edits a while ago in Benedict Arnold, and recently in George III of the United Kingdom. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, where you pointed me to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (biographies). I've made a suggestion in the Talk page there (follow the link above). Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clapton

So how exactly is adding direct quotes by Eric Clapton, with a reliable source plainly provided (The Observer/Guardian Unlimited), "vandalism"? And worthy of threatening to block me? I would have thought adding factual, sourced information to Wikipedia couldn't possibly be vandalism, regardless of whether you approve of the contribution. I think it's outrageous you've just accused me of "vandalism" and threatened to block me for adding Clapton's own words to his biography. Besides, I would have thought it might be relevant to point out to readers that Clapton did not merely express anti-immigration sentiments that night but made statements such as "throw the wogs out" and "keep Britian white", this may help explain why so many people were so angry at him and why he was widely accused of racism. Or is ol' Slowhand's biography intended to be something of a hagiography that leaves awkward facts out if they embarrass him, and anyone who thinks otherwise is to be deemed a "vandal"? Seems odd, if for example John Lennon had once taken to a stage and shouted "keep Britian white", I somehow doubt it wouldn't be metioned in his Wiki biography. 217.38.66.40 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if it was a mistake then no problem. I had assumed you had just taken exception to the inclusion of quotes that might embarass Clapton but if it was a mistake then fine, cheers for putting it back. 217.38.66.40 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ward3001

I'm the user trying to keep the "Clapton's guitars" section afloat. I've been pondering this for a couple of days and I believe the section needs a severe pruning. I think the section should mention the 5 or so tools Clapton has used, the Sho-Bud story, and the signature models from Fender and C.F.Martin. All can be done in a couple of paragraphs, and we'd be rid of the (ever expanding) minutae, at least for a while.

For now, I've added many more sources. I'll draft something in the next few days and put it on the talk page.

Vytal 07:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help. How do I turn the Sonny Purdue entry from appearing as commentary to wiki accepted documentation? Sorry, I'm new at this. Wasn't trying to be biased but to identify/add other tidbits to the story. My apologies if I failed in my attempt. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.170.122 (talk • contribs)

Rorschach ink and Rorschach wikilinks

ehy dear..

i surf without javascript!! and wikiliks works... so, do not change it until you can't prove the opposite... bye!--DrugoNOT (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you out of mind? I don't want ot offend you; but seems like you don't understand. I HAVEN'T removed the link. Have you got it? I surf without javascript and any links works (except javascript based links). I've replaced a non-standard HTTP-LINK with a standard WIKI-LINK. Wiki-links are everywhere on wikipedia, and they all works fine with all browsers (just like a http link does).Btw, both kind of links are recognize even if javascript is turned off (in the internal wikipedia's subsystem, wikilinks differ by http-links only because they have a different CSS class associated with them). For internal linking and interwiki linking, you MUST use wikilinks in place of httplinks. If you'll file a vandalism report, i don't care. Maybe in this way, you can finally kick yourself out of wikipedia. Anyway i haven't found the discussion about the consensus you are talking about. Inside the talk page i don't see a discussion about this point, or at least i've not found out it. So can you write me the direct link about the discussion?, where people prefer a httplink in place of a wikilink?...i'm curious... Bye..--DrugoNOT (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, you are right about the "calm down", but you are not about my request. Can you paste in my talk page the link or the important points of the discussion about the consensus; really i don't find them. I'm waiting...--DrugoNOT (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i've already read the talkpage; there are discussions about the javascript and its problem with browsers lacking of javascripts. But there aren't discussion where people talk about having a HTTP-Link in place of a Wiki-Link.... or i have to be blind, because i always miss it!

If you look at my edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rorschach_inkblot_test&oldid=176133028

And the current page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

you can see that i haven't removed the link, but i've only changed its style... as required by wikipedia for internal linking and interwiki linking. Since internal links on wikipedia *must* be made with wikilinks, i don't see any reason why you have cancelled my edit. So far..

Let me know something more about ur point; because i feel like you haven't understand about what i'm talking.... or maybe ask to some "technical-admin", so he'll explain to you better.

In short: on wikipedia you must have wikilinks everytime this is possible, so you must have wikilinks in place of full-httplinks.

And this discussion does not exists on the talkpage...!

Bye --DrugoNOT (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i've did it. Let's see what will happen...--DrugoNOT (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, looks like there aren't complaints about this little change, but ok, i'm going to wait for some more days before i'll do this change again. Bye!--DrugoNOT (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello" from the "SPA vandal"

Hello Ward3001. I consider the hatchet buried. I do have my own ID (which I'm using now) and would have started using it in the ensuing discussions, but I'm trying to keep this ID anonymous to my students at work, so links on the school's talk page with my username wouldn't have been smart. While I am not exactly new to Wikipedia, I admit ignorance about Wikipedia policy, and even more about the way things actually go down (Like, the very first point in the Policy --also the only one I'd read-- is that I should "be bold" with my edits, but I just found out from you and that other guy who's jumped in it's actually more acceptable to propose an edit on the talk page first, build consensus, and then finally do it. Who knew?). Anyway, I knew that a policy existed, so I went and read it. That's how I was able to quote it to you. For the record, it was just a fly-by edit on a page I was reading, and I don't really care enough about the topic to dedicate the time to coming back and debating it. I'm not invested at all. --Atkinson (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach Images

I thank you for your post on my talk page, And I did comment on the Rorschach article talk page about why does this need to be taken out.

I am very willing on taking an argument with the guys that say "because we can". My argument is that the search of knowledge only has meaning because we are humans and it furthers the cause of humankind. Anybody understands how publishing the answers for a test let's say the SAT, renders the test useless. So how is that an humankind enterprise like wikipedia is supossed to be on the side of people that do not care for the mental health of other people.

If we were talking of a remote website ran by a couple of people my arguments would not hold. But the wikipedia has trascended that and is not represented by a few guys that want to do things "because they can".

Who are these people anyway, I left a message on the talk page, will this reach them? Is ther any other way to catch their attention. I will try to recruit many psychologists to help this situiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.8.32 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "anyone-can-edit" policy puts those of us who try to follow professional ethics in the minority

I can see how it may feel like that to you, and having more experience than I you gives you credence. But I would like to know with more detail how these to groups are made. On one side I see a psychology community that is in charge of the Mental Health of many sick people. The fact that there are naysayers within the psychology community, is equivalent of finding naysayers of global warming. That is not the way to approach this issue.

I think if we took all the people that have issue with this particular page. The ones that would like to see the links to the images gone would win.

Take the abortion page for example I know that this page has been very contentious but yet somehow they figured out a way to keep reasonably good content. So the only thing left is to establish what is reasonably good content.

The main issue at hand is censorship vs hurting mentally ill patients. Not so much as the mechanism by which the best decision should be upheld. Since the wikipedia has already fixed that problem in other pages. This is a very serious issue for the wikipedia. If this ever got leaked as a news story, it would be shown as another case in which self-regulation did not work. Is that realy what the wikipedians want. I doubt it.

The likely harm to Mentally Ill patients should be a basic premise for the discussion. And that anybody who wants to put this images on the page is likely harming some people. If they disagree with this premise the burden is on whoever disagrees to prove it wrong, since we know that the test is currently in use by thousands of licensed psychologists. Otherwise they would need to prove how is that the benefit of having these images available is greater than the harm they do.

This is as much a problem for the Mental Health community as it is for the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.8.32 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) now --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added myself as a user to wikipedia, I would like to attempt removing the image link and/or the reference to all images soon. I did post on the talk page and nobody has answered yet. So at some point, I think it should be safe to assume that I can do the edit.

I really appreciate your postings. I would like to hear if you think this is the way to proceed or if there is something missing. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freud

You quite obviously were unable to read between the very wide and obvious lines of my comment on the Freud talk page, which gorgeously and concisely called for improvement of an article which appears about 90% devoid of any citations. You msg'd me regarding a talk page, and left me comments that were unfounded. I aim only to improve Wikipedia, a great resource which has saved me much time in researching many a topic -- so please don't waste mine unless it has to do with bettering an article. If you'd like help, please ask somebody else, as I care not enough about Freud to really spend any real time on the article. —Preceding Hrhadam (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey sweetie, you wanna take this outside or something? I just perused your talk page -- its full of people voicing disapproval with your perverse fascination with their Wikipedia edits. Are you sitting in a trailer in Kentucky somewhere and this is your main form of entertainment, or is it just how you attempt to add significance to your otherwise pathetic, pointless, skin-wasting existence? Lets put it to this: if anyone ELSE has a problem with my edit on the Freud talk page, I'll gladly stand corrected -- until you find such a consensus, please just leave it on the table. Oh, and, hey, boy: don't ever tell me what to do again -- I'm not one of the subservient "women" you talk to on AIM, I'm real like real deal Holyfield, and you might just be in over your head this time -- because your anonymity on Wikipedia counts for nothing -- suss that out in your mind before you consider moving forward with another rude message, and I mean that quite seriously. Hrhadam (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Great great great. Any luck on the Freud article? Hrhadam (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Congressmen Information

We're actually adding the information to all Congressmen pages. Considering the number of congressman and the fact that we're adding it to all congressmen whose information is available, but they are no longer in office, the process may take longer than several days. They are being updated in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoshka (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

about that one edit! i thought i had read it somewhere,but ill try to get thngs from better souces next time thanks for pointing it out though!Saturn star (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.J. Simpson

I'm sorry about the edit I made. It seemed like an obvious typo to me; I didn't pause to consider that it was a well-edited page and that a typo would have been caught by then, or that it was a quotation. Thank you for being patient.

Saratina (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citations "general intelligence factor"

I don't think that a lack of a citation for one statement should invalidate all of my edits. The following statement was left intact even though the author did not include a citation:

"g positively correlates with conventional measures of success (income, academic achievement, job performance, career prestige) and negatively correlates with various social issues (school dropout, unplanned childbearing, poverty)[citation needed] ."

This statement is highly problematical for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is not accepted that 'g' correlates with these things, since as acknowledged in the article itself, it is the measures of g that correlate. Hence I edited that statement to be more accurate--why delete this change?!

Secondly, the phrase "various social issues" is absurdly vague. How can a factor correlate with an issue? Its just sloppy. Again, I edited it to make the claim more precise. Again, I see no reason why this was deleted.

The following phrase is equally sloppy and also, I would point out, un-cited:

"Scientific publishings of findings of differences in g between ethnic groups (see race and intelligence) have sparked public controversy."

This is a sloppy statement because there is little to say that said publishings were "scientific" except that they were published by people who called themselves "scientists." In fact the scientific status of all publications I know of that make this claim have been vigorously disputed. Moreover, it bears mentioning that beyond being controversial these studies are supported by a small minority of people in the field. Letting the phrase stand as such gives the impression that it is only a matter of conflict between "science" and the "public" which is far from being the case.

Overall, the section is seriously lacking in balance and in reference to the richness of the debate. I attempted to make up for this in the un-cited sentence I added. If it is true that I should have found a citation before doing so, I would like to question why it is that the above poorly written, one-sided statements were allowed to stand without citations, while my contribution was not. In the absence of any semblance of balance or coverage of a complex debate, I think it is absurd to one-sidedly edit contributions that contribute to rounding it out, particularly when they employ the degree of documentation as the others in the same field.

I demand a more adequate explanation or restitution JCR (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "previous uncited statements are not a justification for adding more uncited statements", that still doesn't explain why only my uncited statements were deleted, does it?

I did not (and would not) add this phrase: "IQ tests that measure a wide range of abilities do not predict these outcomes much better than g [citation needed]."

To this I only added the "citation needed." But I'm happy if its deleted because its another overly bold comment (and again, sloppy for substituting g for alleged measures of g)

(you said: "Quite correct that it needs a citation. You added the statement; you should add the citation.")JCR (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach is not "subjective"

I added the citation you requested. And the Rorschach is not "subjective" when interpreted with the Exner system of scoring. For more details, read the article and read Exner. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I do not believe you. Please provide the page number(s) and edition of Exner along with the excerpt(s) which support the claim that this page contains "incorrect interpretations." MilesAgain (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole book is about Rorschach interpretation with the Exner system, so the page numbers you need to read before presuming that you know anything about the topic are 1-545 . And I can give you a dozen or so more references (on your talk page), for starters, if you want more to read. Read Exner before you start slinging around accusations about someone else's expertise. I don't care whether you believe me or not. I know what is correct regarding the Rorschach, especially very elementary interpretation, because I am an expert on the subject, including a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, extensive training by Dr. Exner, and adminstration/interpretation of roughly 300 Rorschachs. What is the basis for your expertise? Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very suspicious that you claim to be an expert, but you are unable to provide any excerpt or specific citation supporting your claim that Dr. Exner's work calls the interpretations here "incorrect." For starters, anyone with the first-hand expertise you have should easily be able to provide a specific excerpt for your claim. More importantly, it seems extremely unlikely to me that you would be able to find any source from 2002 which says that specific interpretations made in the 2007 external link are "incorrect" on a projective evaluation, for which several easily-googleable, apparently reliable sources say there are no "wrong" answers. Consider, if an answer suggests a personality problem which the examiner is screening for, how can it be "incorrect," when it is furthering the objectives of the test?

To answer your question, I have absolutely no expertise with the Rorschach test. However, I am certain that I can understand the plain language of Wikipedia rules as well as you. They include:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.... Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim [including] surprising ... claims that are not widely known.... The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics...." -- WP:V
"conflict of interest edits are strongly discouraged.... Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, ... employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.... If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously." -- WP:COI (emphasis added in both)

The fact that you found it necessary to use all caps in an reverting edit summary suggests to me that you are emotionally involved with this subject which clearly represents a large portion of your life's work. Since you cited the entirety of the 2002 book instead of providing specific page numbers per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it after I specifically requested them, I can not assume enough good faith to bring myself to believe that you are not conflicted here.

I must renew my request for the specific excerpt(s) or exact citation(s) supporting your claim that the external link contains "incorrect" interpretations, and I will be reverting the edit suggesting that it does, in accordance with the foundational WP:V policy. Thank you. MilesAgain (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your lengthy reply here. It seems that you are quite familiar with Wikipedia rules, but you seem to have disregarded Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am sure that you realize "you don't know what you're talking about" is a comment on a contributor, not content.

It is clear from your message that Exner does not actually say that the interpretations given on the web page in question are "incorrect." Indeed, you wrote that I, "expect a specific page number for something that Exner does not say." If the source does not actually support the statement that the interpretations given are "incorrect," then it is wrong to imply that it does. I will grant you that there are statements on that page that do not apply to Exner's system. You say that a quote on the page, "was written in 1983, well before most of Exner's work was done." If the commentary is outdated, that is what should be said. If it is not true that the page includes "incorrect interpretations," then that should not be said.

Much of your reply was comprised of ungrammatical lists of codes and terms for which you gave no description other noun-phrase headings such as, "IDEATION". I have no idea what you expect to communicate by, for example, "Sum Shad > FM+m or CF+C > FC+1 or Afr < 0.46: Affect > Controls > Self Perception > Interpersonal Perception > Processing > Mediation > Ideation."

I was particularly confused with one particular aspect of your reply, when you repeatedly wrote, "A sexual response is not identified as pathological by specific card (plate) in the above summary of Exner, nor in any of his writings." But two paragraphs later, you said, "Sex response become important only when used in multiple responses and in combination with other pathological indicators...." You do not disagree with the web page's suggestion that, "responses should not be overly sexual," given that responses is in the plural. If indeed you do disagree with that assertion, please let me know.

To respond to your remaining bullet points, I am sure "sane" is a legal term, but it is also a common English word defined in multiple dictionaries as "mentally healthy," which is clearly applicable to a subject's results for the "clusters" you described in the "interpretive strategy." According to the Rorschach inkblot test article, prior to Exner's system, card turning and timing was in fact scored. I agree those statements is outdated, but they are not "incorrect interpretations."

I will edit the article with a proposed compromise. MilesAgain (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Staff Salary Data

I saw that you had objected to some some anon user's edit of Senator McCaskill's article. The anon editor had added an external link to staff salary data to McCaskill's page alone. You objected to the POV nature of adding this to a single senator, and gave the editor notice to add to others to address this. I replied to your note on the anon users page as follows:

I see that the original editor that you were refering to did not comply, and you removed the info to maintained NPOV. I agree that having this information on a single senator's page questionable. However, I think this is valuable information to have available for ALL senators (and indeed representatives). To that end I have added a field to the CongLinks template for this purpose. I have added this information to both Missouri senators, and am in the process of adding it to both Senators from other states (through the A's so far, sigh). Hopefully others will help add to the senators and also to the representatives.

I assume you will not have any NPOV concerns with this. If you do, please let me know. Thanks, kenj0418 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach Issue

Do you think that you may be putting too much information about scoring and administering the Rorschach out there? It might be less harmful for nonsense to remain on the page, than too-detailed descriptions of scoring and administration. Respectfully, Faustian (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Secrets

Thank you for backing me up on the Three Secrets of Fatima article. I thought that by moving the section to the talk page I could avoid a nasty edit war, but I guess some people just don't get it. Albie34423 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 5

Why are you re-editing to make it fit your status? What you've done is making the page have little to no info. about casting, even Donna Harrison in Dr. Phil! How about Sohpie Monk? Some sites report she will be in it while others don't. Isn't that worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigammagicwizard (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Also, I don't want to argue or fight. You told me I put false info. (or that's what I'm ASSUMING) but the sites were on the page and you could have clearly clicked the link to the info. I was putting on the page. Anyways, it's almost Christmas and I really don't want to fight. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ok, I didn't realise you couldn't put "rumors" until now. I'm not like a Wikipedia freak who knows all the rules, okay? Anyways, I'm sorry that I did something unknowingly and almost got threatened to be blocked for something I didn't know. Why are people so strict these days? Gosh, and it's December and you've almost ruined my day. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack???? Wtf? I changed a POV edit and made it non-pov, the word supposedly isnt wiki materiel, fuck... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.171.248 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F*ck (cencored for sensitivity purposes)

User talk:58.107.171.248 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search With regard to your edit summary for Babel (film)‎: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Simple use of the word "fuck" is not a violation of Wikipedia policy; it is simply crass and suggestive of limited vocabulary when used repeatedly. Telling an editor to "fuck off" as you did, however, is a personal attack. Read Wikipedia policy. Continued personal attacks can result in a block from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Simple use of the word "fuck" is not a violation of Wikipedia policy; it is simply crass and suggestive of limited vocabulary when used repeatedly. Telling an editor to "fuck off" as you did, however, is a personal attack. Read Wikipedia policy. Continued personal attacks can result in a block from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have said in total less than 100 words and you assume off that that I have a limited vocabulary??? Well fuck! I could just as easily assume the same thing about you but I use my BRAIN first idiot. What words do you use to express anger and frustration at your fellow peoples idiocy? I bet none have the same kick as fuck. Now, I wasnt attacking anyone by typing fuck, (you really have some sensitivity issues here) I was just expressing some anger at what I saw as a POV edit. If you have a problem with me getting rid of POV on this site, then I suggest you fuck off.

Just incase you never look on my page again... 58.107.171.248 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

Thank you so much for the message you left on my talk page! It means a lot to me! Ospinad (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp fiction

Hi there! Please could you explain the sense in the wikilink to gay pulp fiction from a reference in the text to rape, because I cannot for the life of me see it. Thanks! Ged UK (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reference to pulp magazines from the title, I understand how gay pulp fiction is the gay variation if you like, and I know the rapists are gay men, but I still do not understand what the point of the wikilink is that links gay pulp fiction to gay rape. To me it just feels like an unnecesary wikilink that doesn't add anything to the article. Perhaps this is a discussion for the article's talk page? Maybe it's just me being dumb!Ged UK (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kill Bill characters

There was no policy discussion of any kind before I merged (or at least started to merge) the character articles. It was something I'd been eyeballing for a long time... I'm a huuuuge Kill Bill fan, but there is absolutely no reason to have the vast majority of these pages. I also haven't merged all of the pages- I left the pages on The Bride, Bill, and the DVAS, and I'm not going to touch the Earl McGraw article. There's just no reason to have any of these characters- they played supporting roles in a single film, and some of the characters with articles only had a few lines in the entire movie. Additionally, the articles simply consisted of one plot rehashing after another, and maybe one or two pop culture references. None of them had any sourcing (not that the new list does, but at least it's condensed and sourceless). As far as the merging, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I also don't think it's the worst idea on the face of the earth. If the article does end up being rather long, we can always just unmerge. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely fine with me- if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference, since I don't own the article, but in this case, it's fine anyway. My problems with the individual articles, aside from their lack of necessity as a whole, was that they were almost without content. Vernita Green, for example, is in the film for (I'm estimating here) eight minutes. The entire article was simply describing every single aspect of those eight minutes, moment by moment. I'm not opposed to expanding the character info, so long as it's substantial content. I can say with conviction that the two sentences I wrote about Rufus are the only two sentences that need to be written about him. However, there is certainly a lot of exposition on, say, O-Ren or Pai Mei, that could be included if it's not particularly "crufty", as most of the previous articles were.

As far as images go, if you want to add them, then be my guest. My only concern is WP's rules on fair-use images, specifically that there shouldn't be an overabundance of them. If there were to just be images of, say, the four DVAS members who now don't have their own articles, that'd be totally cool. And of course, these are just the opinions of one editor- please, use your own discretion, as your ideas are as valid as mine. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stepping over the line"? Ha! I'm sure you can handle this, and you sure as hell don't need my permission. As far as the leniency issue, I agree that films have the lack-of-free-images problem, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think you'd agree (though feel free not to) that in this instance, we don't need pictures of everyone- will it really improve the article's encyclopedic value to know what Esteban looks like?

It's always good to have a nice, friendly conversation. With my current work situation, when I'm not at work, I barely get enough of those in good life, much less on WP. -- Mike (Kicking222) —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

So we're not doing flag icons anymore, cause I still see them on some biography articles. I just assumed nobody took the time out to put them there. Just tell me in person what the policy is because being here for as long as I have I've discovered that those policy articles are a bunch of political b.s. Lighthead ^þ 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look before you edit

Hi. You undid my edit on Pulp Fiction. Why? I accepted the "Americanised" 'co-' dab edit from DCGeist and made other VALID minor changes that also saved a little space, albeit just 5 bytes. Every subsequent save by editors would have also saved 5 bytes... it all adds up in saving space on the server. More importantly though the article has been corrected. If you undo a non-vandalism edit it is best to say why you did what you did. An "undo" isn't always a FULL undo; other changes can - and in this case were - made at the same time.AirdishStraus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think I overreacted. The break was superfluous as it was followed by a section heading. The part of the article we are talking about looks identical either way, so I do not understand your comment about 'preference'. Thanks for the info on saved files on the server. I stand corrected on this. I guess I was a bit narked about the previous edit by DCGeist quoting preference for 'American English' over REAL English.AirdishStraus (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liesel Matthews

Not sure why you took that link to her interview out. It is very hard to find interviews done with Liesel as she did not do many of them. I am going to put it back because there was nothing wrong with it and there are PLENTY of other Wikipedia celebrity articles that have interview links in them. Gracias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadisonGold (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.143.18.73

Copyedit from my talk page:"I noticed that you reverted an edit because this user is banned. I found an indication of a block but not a ban. Please give me a link where the ban is indicated. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)."[reply]

Hi Ward, thanks for writing. It is undoubtably another meat/sock puppet of banned editor Harvey Carter. Even though this sock is operating, he is reconstituting all of Harvey's old edits. I consider socks the same. FWIW, see: User:HarveyCarter for a rendition of his old hits. Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Phil McGraw

How can what I wrote be defamatory? Truth is always a defense to libel. Nutmegger (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate?

"Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to The Beatles. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)"

How is this an inappropriate external link? Are the last.fm and musicbrainz.org links spam or inappropriate? Discogs is one of the largest, if not THE largest, user built databases of music information on the internet. I'm simply linking to an important reference site as it's beneficial to people who are interested in The Beatles music.

"Inflammatory" information on Phil McGraw

You added a statement: "ethical violation involving a teenage girl". It is extremely important in biographies of living people to avoid statements that even suggest controversial behavior even if it is not stated overtly. "Teenage girl" suggests behavior involving a minor and is inflammatory. Althouh it is technically accurate, it gives an inaccurate impression by omission of important information: the person in question was an adult, not in the age range 13-17 years old. I will not go so far as to say that you were intentionally deceptive, but it certainly gives that appearance. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and be cautious with your wording in biographies. Editors are held to a higher standard in such articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had said "ethical violation involving a minor girl" (or juvenile girl or young girl), I would agree with you. However, that is not what I said, so none of this applies to me, especially the part about being intentionally deceptive. Teenager means "a person from the age of 13 through 19"--nothing more or less. There is no controversy about that. However, Phil McGraw's behavior was controversial enough to result in a rare sanction from the Texas Board (only the 7th person ever sanctioned for "dual relationship", and he was one of the few Texas-licensed psychologists ever required to undergo a psychological exam as part of a sanction). The teenager in question was technically an adult, but had a mental problem that McGraw was supposed to be treating--not taking advantage of. So, it's mostly Dr. Phil's fault that describing this sordid chapter in his life is so shocking and revolting. I think you mistake your own natural disgust at reading the details of this event with "inflammatory" comments. Wikeye (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just give her exact age? That way the reader is better informed. NuclearWinner (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Fiction edits

Okay, I agree that my first version of the edit was POV, but how the heck was my second version? Pointing out that the T-Shirt he was given depicted the USSC banana slug is not POV, its objective fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.135.218 (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweets

Thanks for the assist. Precious Roy (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main project I wanted to finish (Australian hip hop) is taking longer than I initially thought. Argh. Anyhow, thanks again and take care. Precious Roy (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Santos

Hey there - I could use some support on the Lucia Santos article, which is related to the Three Secrets of Fatima article. I have what appears to be one person with various anonymous IP addresses that keeps making mostly unproductive (although not always) changes and when I correct these he keeps undoing it. So it keeps going back and forth. We could use the eyes of a third person here to help arbitrate. Albie34423 (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it is just me and him going back and forth. We may actually be making some collaborative progress at this point, but I won't hold my breath. Albie34423 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Medved

My claim that Medved is sympathetic toward the Confederacy is not defamatory, since being sympathetic toward the Confederacy is not inherently an insult. Secondly, it is sourced, as I referenced a movie review he gave of Gods and Generals.[6]. Any further questions? --69.249.191.221 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Edited Scary Movie

Was Because It Was True. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael76 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Phil

Sorry, deletion was an accident. Reordering was the only desired outcome from the edit. RabidWolf (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Trebek

I know that's not in the source, but it was lame for you to revert on that basis, because it doesn't improve the article to have a future tense for a past event. Perhaps you weren't considering that I was working on adding the source but fixing an obvious incongruity until I could. I am of the school that it's better to get an article correct and add sourcing later rather than have something incorrect linger there while sourcing is searched for. Robert K S (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for, as you see it, "commenting on the contributor". Let me comment on the content. The edit that was made by User:Ward3001 was an unproductive one, the sort that frustrates and discourages editors who work to produce verifiable, well-sourced content. Falsely justifying it with the verifiability threshold policy is an abuse counter to the spirit of the project, because it denies the process of content evolution. Edit behaviors that revert edits reflective of the truth on policy grounds—and here we are not even referring to some unknown or unknowable metaphysical "Truth" but the simple grammatical sensibility of using the appropriate verb tense once a date has passed and a forespoken event has come to fruition—are niggling and unhelpful. If you disputed the content in question, the appropriate course as I see it would have been to add a {{fact}} tag. You apparently had no dispute with the content and beelined for the revert button, returning the article statement to a nonsensical state. That was the easy thing to do, and I think it was inappropriate. Robert K S (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy you cite is for contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. The spirit of the law is to effectively counter libel. You choose to (wrongly) invoke the letter of the law rather than follow the spirit of the law. This isn't a content dispute, this is a dispute of philosophies, and yours sucks. Do you mind if I remove your overlong ranting from my talk page? It's rather a clutter. Robert K S (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template the regulars. Antiproductive edit behaviors deserve to be called out on Wikipedia. Thanks for your permission to remove your messages from my talk page. As misconceived as they are, I wouldn't have removed them without your consent. Robert K S (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the rvvs on my pages. I'm pretty sure that User:Burke and Hare is not Charlene but is related to this edit of mine. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Don't say that—you'll jinx me! One is quite enough. Precious Roy (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed Abraham Lincoln assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a few related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a question...

Hello. I didn't know who to ask but I want to add a picture to a page. I'm not understanding this where it says you have to own the picture to post it. The thing is, you know when people post pictures, they didn't actually take the picture of the celebrity or the person the page is about. So does it mean that I can go on a site, get a picture, and just verify where I got the picture from? Please give me more details. Thanks you. :) Los besos (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a question, too

So there's this new user who has been creating multiple articles that are not Wiki-appropriate (notability), uploading images claiming copyright when they obviously belong to someone else, re-creating articles deleted via due process, and the like. I've tried helpful hints on the talk page, and have been watching his edits, but he continues to make poor choices with their editing. The last time I headed down this road I ended up with an albatross named Tweety tied around my neck and I just don't have the energy, ya know? Is there someplace that would be appropriate to throw his name for oversight? He's not a vandal per se but he doesn't seem to "get" the rules. I even convinced him to get Wiki-adopted but his adopter doesn't really seem to be mentoring him at all. She just threw Twinkle at him and set him loose. Anyhow, can you suggest an appropriate forum? Thanks, Precious Roy (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking ANI. Thanks for the advice. Precious Roy (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rock Hudson

My apologies; I thought the reason for the removal would be obvious. Category:Gay actors from the United States is a sub-category of Category:Gay actors. Placing Rock Hudson in both categories would be redundant and unnecessary. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winona Ryder

Hi Ward - an I.P. with which you're familiar has posted an alert at WP:ANI (see WP:ANI#Category "dispute") regarding your removal of Category:Russian-Americans from the Ryder article. I admit that I am myself a little curious as to why you'd do that without addressing the I.P.'s points on the talk page - he seems a little confused right now, and I can't say as that I blame him. Would you be able to drop a note on the article's talk page when you have a chance, so the I.P. is at least clear on why his changes are being reverted? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, and I certainly don't condone edit-warring. It just struck me as odd that you'd ask for discussion on the talk page, and then not respond at all when he posted something there. Anyway, hopefully this will be resolved shortly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellas

I added a link that gives relevant information about the movie that the wikipedia article does not, which according to the EL article is completely allowed. I don't know why you insist on removing the link. - Mast3r Betty

The fact that the link I provided has a far more in depth summary of the movie should be justify it being included in the external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3r Betty (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to justify my additions to you. They all include relevant and additional information to the articles; bio information, pictures, the movies they were in, etc. Granted some information will be repeated but if you took the time to read the Goodfellas article before you shoot it down it will be obvious that there is information in there that is not featured in the Wikipedia article. Take a look at the 300 pictures from it, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3r Betty (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I AM conforming to the standards. It states that as long as I am adding relevant and on-topic information an EL is fine, which is what I am doing. The articles contain relevant information about the movies as well as pictures and character profiles. I don't see what is so difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3r Betty (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take the time to read the articles before dismissing. Anybody with half a brain would realize that they do in fact have a plethora of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3r Betty (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read the entire Goodfellas page in the 9 seconds it was up? Likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3r Betty (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All links added by Mast3r Betty have been removed. They were self-promotional spam. Just as in the earlier link he was adding, the websites all belong to one "Justin Tullock" which makes it pretty clear that Mast3r Betty is Justin Tullock adding various links to his own websites. IrishGuy ^talk 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Lane Drew

New International Encyclopedia says that she was born in London. * So does this web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superslum (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other information in New International Encyclopedia are that she appeared on stage in Philadelphia at about 8 years of age; that her best role was that of Mrs. Malaprop in The Rivals; and that John Drew was her third husband. There are many websites which say that she was "born in London." Googling her name will produce such websites. I am going to keep away from the article because I have no desire to involve myself in a "dispute" or a "controversy" related to any article. Time is a-wasting. Superslum (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Blocking

Hello I was reading this article Grand_Ayatollah_Mohammad_Shirazi and got a message from you regarding some editing and vandalizing. Please do all you see fit to stop people from doing these things. However, also please note that I did not view the article you mentioned and did not edit it at all. This problem occurs regularly to innocent people, because of the system of IP addresses here in Bahrain, the Baelco Telecommunication Company. In fact, I got sick of being blocked innocently more than a year ago, that I stopped using Wikipedia all-together, and now I just view the articles that I find through Google search results. Thank you for your efforts for serving Wikipedia. 84.255.135.97 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Thread and IP Editor

I didn't wipe it out, I just put it behind a collapse box. If you click the 'show' button its all still there. Most of what is now behind the box is repetitive warnings, which I've collapsed in order to make a new start on his talk page and emphasize the importance of paying attention to messages about getting an account etc. The object is to address your concern constructively without being bitey about it or unnecessarily blocking someone who could ultimately become a useful contributor. ^Avruchtalk 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at my talk page and will make future responses there. ^Avruchtalk 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ^Avruchtalk 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jenny Packham. The information I gave on Chris Packham's page happens to be true, and relevant. She is his sister and she is a well-known dress designer. I happen to know her personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.13 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you have this bee in your bonnet. You live in North Carolina, so you obviously know better than me. I know her she has a website, she is the sister of Chris Packham, but, dear God, if it is going to cause you that much pain, YAWN.......it's fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.13 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Bynes

Have I done wrong there? I thought I was reverting vandalism. --Cog_ES 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I was looking at the net changes over different edits when I did my second edit.

By the by, your user page is confusing (I mean the "you have messages" bit). --Cog_ES 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then your user page is deliberately confusing, and demeaning thereby. I'm proud to know you. --Cog_ES 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's tremendously unfair to expose people to that message. --Cog_ES 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellas

I've written a proposed rewrite to the plot at Talk:Goodfellas/Archives/2019/August#Plot_summary. Your comments and suggestions for change would be helpful. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was left on your talk page before the page move was undone - reinserting) Bencherlite ^Talk 10:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry. I will stop innaproprite comments.Goblyglook (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the reminder.You seem to be very attentive to peoples talk pages. People like you make Wikipedia much better.Goblyglook (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Yes I would like to be adopted by an experianced administrateor.Goblyglook (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the images on Winona Ryder

But how come images like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ET_Moon.jpg have all the same copyright disclaimers as I used for Winona Ryder, yet the images on that page were removed at those images remain. I’m new to Wikipedia, sorry. Delia19 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Phil address removal explained

Whoops! I thought it would be interesting info, but I see it is clearly not allowed. Thanks for the heads up. I'll restore the square footage and other non-prohibited info (if allowed) after I talk to Gamaliel. Wikeye (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re my vandalism of your User Page

I responded on my talk page where you posted, but in case you aren't watching that, I will crosspost my response over here:

Relax. I didn't put anything on your user page that wasn't true: my vandalism brought the count up to 39, if 38 was the correct count before. That amused me, and since it didn't change anything else on your page--in fact, since it was an update that you might have made yourself, I wasn't too bothered over obtaining consent. I find your stuffy, moralistic attitude rather less justified than my "juvenile, self-centered arrogance", but naturally, this is a matter of opinion. Don't worry, I shan't push your buttons by vandalizing your user page any more. I wouldn't have in any case: it would be like repeating a joke because someone doesn't find it funny the first time.

Regards,

JudahH

PS-Do try to mellow out a little. I believe it will make you a happier man. JudahH (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

Thank you for your feedback regarding this article.

The only reason I added the word Deceased after the releavnt names is becuase I had seen it done on a few other band articles, so I just done the same here to make it more consistant.

I did NOT see the request for me not to do this at all, as I was focusing on where to put the additional bit.

Can I ask though, why would anyone not want this information to be added? I thought Wikipedia was all about gathering knowledge for everyone to see. I know the Beatles are a massive band and a lot of people have heard of them, but not everyone knows about them and not eveyone knows which members are deceased. Very few people know lots and lots about any one subject, hence the article to explain as much as possiblt to anyone who wishes to read it.

Secondly I also found your comment towards me a little nasty "did you even look at what you were editing" it did sound like you were talking down to me and I don't like that, as all I'm trying to do is make a contribution. I have made several contributions, both under my own name and some without being logged in. I ask for nothing in return except to share what I know with other people.

If I make a mistake or do something I shouldn't, please point it out by all means but at the same time, have some respect for me as I'm only trying to help, not hinder.

I'm not trying to talk down to you, I'm just asking you a few questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McAdams Edit

All I did was change the date of her birthday. I saw a another source that said her birthday was different than what was written in the article, so I changed it. Even some of the sources on the page list her birtdate as different than what is in the wiki article. I didn't think it was that big of deal that you had to warn me about vandelism. It's a non issue.

I apologize. I was unaware that changing a birthdate was such a major issue. I wil review the talk pages next before I decide to make an edit to any other entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccol7280 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Bien

Before calling one's attention take some time to check what was done, moron. The guy above is a vandal. Thanks. 201.19.140.123 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

           -Not sure I understand why crediting uncredited extras is wikipedia vandalism.  Isn't that potentially interesting information?

The Beatles

Note also that English rock redirects to British rock. Robert K S (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with the nationality discussions over on MOSBIO for several weeks now. There's currently no consensus on the best way to describe the nationalities of English subjects. In the case of the Beatles, "English" is more precise but "British" is technically more accurate (it is the adjective used to describe a citizen of the United Kingdom). Google "British band" and "English band" (include quotes) and note difference in number of results. We have British rock, British invasion, British new wave (in cinema), Britpop, but not "English" those. Bands like the Beatles, Stones, and Kinks are more commonly described in the literature as British bands, not English bands. Robert K S (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang tight, Ward, I'm initiating a discussion on the talk page. As for those other bands, let's see if anyone else reverts my change or if you're the one who does so. Robert K S (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. I didn't realize the change from "English" -> "British" was recent until you mentioned so. If that was the stable descriptor on Wikipedia for over a year, it appears to have had implicit consensus, but I find article history a much less compelling argument than the others I've presented, so I won't be the one to change it to "English". (The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article had a peacock mess of a lead for years until I fixed it up a couple weeks ago. Rationale argument must trump "consensus-by-inaction".) Anyway, I've posted a little poll to the Beatles talk so you're welcome to post your arguments for "English" there and add your name to the poll. Robert K S (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How have you determined that there is consensus for "English"? Robert K S (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message to the Beatles talk. Instead of working toward consensus by elaborating arguments and casting a vote in the poll, decided to cast aspersions on me as an editor. I have a POV, but there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm certainly willing to bend to consensus if one can be determined. Your stability=consensus assumption is also a POV; let's see if other users buy into it on the talk page. I thought my poll was worded very neutrally and gave fairness to the arguments you presented me. If your interests are really in working toward consensus through rational discussion, you'll remove your comment which focuses on a user rather than on an issue, and enter the discussion. Robert K S (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly change back to English if you agree to delete your remarks in the Beatles talk between the introduction and the rationale sections, which divert from the issue. Robert K S (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margherita Marchione, A Biography??

You reversed my editing of the Marchione book as source on the early life of Pope Pius XII. You state: Most of what is known about Pacelli's early life comes from a comprehensive biography by Sister Margherita Marchione.

Well, this is not quite correct. Permit an explanation.

I have the good book in front of me, it is not a comprehensive biography, nor intended to be one. There is very little on the early life of Pius XII, understandably so, since it deals with the peace policies of Pope Pius XII. The excellent Marchione book has four parts:

- Pius XII in the Maelstrom of WWII
- The Pope and his concern for prisoners of war
- The Pope and the horror of Holocaust
- Background information (including a less than three page chronological date sheet)

To call this a comprehensive biography is an injustice to Sister Marchione! Kindly prove me wrong. -:))

Important early biographies with reviews of the early years include Nazareno Padellaro, Piero Bagellini and others. See also: Main page, Early Years, within Wikipedia Pope Pius XII.

An up-to-date comprehensive biography of Pope Pius XII, remains to be written.

Greetings

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]