User talk:KeltieMartinFan/Archive001

Italics

Proper nouns are simply things that refer to specific person, people, or places (e.g., "John Smith"). They are not automatically italicized; see WP:ITALICS. Samer (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary on Anderson Cooper

I'm sure you could come up with a better way of describing another editor's contributions (good or bad) as having come out of their behind. That's not quite civil. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I probably could have. I really thought long and hard trying not to say another word of that nature. Under this particular circumstance, I felt the choice of word I used at the time was at least appropriate to say in this, giving the disruptive nature of the user in questioned. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr. Kruzkin Returns

Already blocked by another admin, back on August 3. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Katie Couric and South Park

Please read over the discussions about her being a journalist - Infotainer, Vandalism from 168.253 range and Journalist. I believe this will show that others might find she lacks the credibility to be considered a journalist.

In regards to your assumption that information on Couric in Popular Culture is too much I would advise you to remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. You might find the reference of her in South Park to be irrelevant, but it is a way in which she was mentioned in a very popular form of media in the U.S. and I have provided adequate citation to backup the references to the episode.

Also keep in mind that this should be viewed as a biographical piece on Couric and not a fan club page for people who are enamored with her style. You might find the reference to be trivial, however someone may find the South Park reference to be new information that gives a different critique to Couric's persona.

Later SmedPull 11:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I should be advising you on the same thing. Whether I’m a fan Katie Couric or not, it does not mean a thing to the administrators of Wikipedia. Indeed you are right, this is a biographical piece as you described, and not a fan club page. Therefore, a trivial reference on a particular episode of what appears to be your absolute favorite television show, judging by your history record, is something that would not be included. If a show like E! True Hollywood Story were to do such a piece on her, this would not be something that would be included. What you’re putting is not popular culture, it’s as I said...trivial. Wikipeidia has rules against trivial information, known as Fancruft. I should know about that, because I had been a violator of that rule before. I put trivial information on other celebrities’ articles, not necessarily offensive and degratory like the one you’re putting here, and every single time, it got reverted. On top of that, there is no trivial reference of this particular episode on Bono’s article. Truthfully speaking, he was the central figure of this episode, not Couric. So if I have to venture a guess about your intentions here, I would say that you wouldn’t be described as a non-Couric fan, but rather an anti Couric. By all means, correct me if I’m wrong. Nevertheless, this has been discussed before six months earlier, and this particular piece of information does not belong on the Katie Couric article, whether you respectfully deagree with me or not. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

South Park and More Crap

I understand you might find the way in which South Park refers to Couric in the episode More Crap to be offensive and insensitive. However, I do think it would be intellectually dishonest to edit the episode's wiki page in a way that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as a source for honest and well verified information.

Later SmedPull 11:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to reinterate on something you wrote to me earlier today. “This is a biographical piece as you described, and not a fan club page.” If this is something you feel very passionate about, why don’t you start a South Park fanpage then. I watched that episode that is in question, and the actual spelling is “kuric” not “couric”, just as Yukichigai (talk) perscribed it. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't say? I recommend you review the clip Crap Verification and tell me that at 1:10 of the clip there is no reference to Katie Couric made. I also humbly request that you go to SouthParkStudios.com and tell me what kind of results one would receive when doing a website search for the word "Couric (or Courics)" versus searching for the word "Kuric (or Kurics)". I would also like to refer you to Talk:More Crap-European Fecal Standards & Measurements Board to point out the validity of Yukichigai's (talk) recommended edits for citing the EFSM's bogus website as a valid reference for the term "Kuric." Simply put, SouthParkStudios.com is the official website for the show and therefore should be used as precedence over an unverified website.

Respectfully submitted,

SmedPull 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Woman image

Greetings. I've deleted the file File:Lisa Chloë Máiréad Alex Órla Lynn.jpg because it is a non-free image of living persons, which is prohibited on the site. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2, point #12, and to an extent, #11 and . If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Cheers. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Awww man! I thought I did everything right on that thing. What does one have to do to get a “free” picture of our favorite musical group? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks, but we do strive to be free. The best option is to try to take a photograph yourself, should you have the opportunity. Folks will occasionally post free images on Flickr...I try to check there periodically myself. One final possibility would be to get CW to release one of their promo images (like the one you uploaded) into the public domain, or under a Commons-acceptable license (GFDL or CC-By-SA, etc). The process of release is a bit complicated, but such a promo pic will of course yield the highest-quality image. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, KeltieMartinFan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This edit is unacceptable, and if repeated in any shape or form, may lead to you being blocked for personal attacks. We are meant to be a cooperative environment and that sort of thing poisons the well. Please comments on edits, not editors; and nobody is obliged to edit with an account. Rodhullandemu 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Nobody is obliged to edit with an account. However, that’s not the main point here. In a story, there’s always two sides to the discussion. With all due respect, I have reasons to believe that you are seeing only one side of the story. This particular user who I currently am in a disagreement with, 87.69.176.81 (talk), has a series of unsourced edits and unconstructive edits to various articles. And with all due respect, I have not seen this particular editor contribute positively to any articles he has edited, and a few other editors feel the same way as well as evident from his own (talk page) When other editors, including myself try to revert his unconstructive edits, he reverted right back. And before any of us know it, we are engaging in unwanted edit war with this user. To add insult to injury, he goes around the talk pages pretending to be a wikipedia administrator and put warnings out each and everyone of them in hopes that he can intimidate them in from interfering in his unconstructive ways. You accuse me of “poising to well” here on wikipedia. But what about 87.69.176.81 (talk)? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t putting unsourced and unconstructive edits, engaging in edit wars with more than one editor, pretending to be a wikipedia administrator, and putting random warnings left and right to his opposition illegal here on wikipedia, and constitute to “poisiong the well” also? As far as see, I don’t any sanctions and warning handled down to him, and he did a lot more damage than I did. It is never in my nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia. But sometimes, honest and civil wikipedians face unwanted uncivility from these uncivil editors. And to be honest, whenever one tries to report an incident to a wikipedia administrator in hopes that it may be resolved, a lot of times the administrator turns a blind eye. Somestimes, like this instance, they protect the wrong person. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to summarize these complaints in the section in WP:ANI. But where did he claim to be an administrator? Anyone can warn another user for inappropriate behavior, that's not limited to admins, although it probably carries more weight if it comes from an admin. I recommend you go to ANI with your views, except try to cut down the quantity of words. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This was the warning that this editor gave to me yesterday in regards to the issue regarding the Katie Couric article.

== Edit war ==

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Katie Couric. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because didn’t think highly of this particular warning based on the fact that an IP address was used rather than a user name. But as you know, nothing really ever gets deleted. So if you were go to back to my “history” tab under my “talk page” and click on the “08:43, 30 April 2009” link, you will see this editor in fact violated wikipedia policy be pretending to be an administrator. And it’s not just me that he did this to. If you go to the talk pages of Alastairward (talk) & --Captain Infinity (talk), and scroll down to the very bottom of each one, you will see and understand where I’m getting at. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a standard warning template that any user can post (except for his little comment at the end). He's not pretending to be an admin. His mistake was in claiming 3RR violation, when in fact you were only at 3 reverts, not past it. I would like for you to post your concerns on ANI, though, and help wrap up that section. Be aware that I think the both of you are exhibiting aggressive behavior. Not necessarily blockable behavior, though. This is largely a content dispute between two editors who are firm, and opposite, in their viewpoints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. I appreciate all your help. I file my report when I get the time. Thanks again. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You might want to do that sooner than later, seeing as both WP:ANI and WP:WQA reports are both active ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about doing it, but to be very honest...is not worth my time and effort, no offense. It’s not saying that I don’t have an encyclopedia of comments to say. Judging by both bulletin boards, it seems the users writing on these have nothing better to do in their spare time than to write retaliation remarks on whomever, whether it’s me or anybody else, and that comes off as nothing but petty. I have more dignity and integrity than to stoop to that level. This is not a court room. Nothing justifiable is going to come out of this. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

While you definitely don't need to respond to the AN/I thread if you think it's not worth your time, I would suggest you take the time to reconsider what makes you believe that edits like these are in any way acceptable. --Onorem♠Dil 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion taken to heart. Thank you. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to go a step further than taking it to heart - you have an editor who is out for blood, and unless you head it off soon, I see an escalation coming. I believe that your silence in WP:ANI has merely added to the vitriol. Although there was no consensus to take action against you, it was more on a technicality than anything else ... the rest of us really shouldn't be the ones "fighting your battles". I understand you felt frustrated, but as you can see by the reaction, it certainly was not the right direction to take. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Bwilkins. And I do appreciate the ones who are sticking up for me. But somebody said something on one of the boards that went like "you did yourself a huge dis-service complaining endlessly." The way I see it, with users like 87.69.176.81, Ricky81682 and Caden doing a good majority of the complaining, it only just show their true colors and their true nature. Therefore, I rather take the high road and just stay out of it. Besides, I do have a thing called weekend plans, and that do not involved spending hours upon hours in an endless virtual slug fest on here, no offense. To sum it all up, this is just me being civil, simply by keeping my mouth shut. I hope you understand. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the ANI thread was closed and that the complainant was put on ice for a week for pushing his point a little too far. As one who has defended articles against marauders, as you have with Katie Couric, I sympathize with your lashing out. However, it would be better in future to simply say "take it to talk page", and then in the talk page, point out where the consensus was reached. Then if they ignore you, turn them in. In short, "don't get mad, get even." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I didn’t notice that the ANI thread was closed or that my main opposition right now has been blocked. That’s nice to know, and I thank you for sharing this piece of information with me. Even though something tells me this block is not going to stop him, and that we’ll be hearing from him sooner than we think from another account. It’s all strictly speculation right now, so I’ll just leave at that. We’ll just have to wait and find out. I also want to thank you for your sympathy and advice about the “talk page”. I will definitely make the effort to leave my Bobby Knight instincts out in the future. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He's been coming back frequently, in the last 24 hours, under various other IP's. Between the wording of many of his comments and his never-ending desire to post the Couric nonsense, he seems to be singularly obsessed with excrement, which might be a natural consequence of watching South Park too much, and is more information than I want to know about any user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Anyway, it has been a whirlwind ride the past few days. But now I have more important things to attend to. I see you around. Take care. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"The way I see it, with users like 87.69.176.81, Ricky81682 and Caden doing a good majority of the complaining, it only just show their true colors and their true nature." I was not complaining, I was simply stating the truth concerning your aggressive bully behavior. If you got something to say dude, say it to my face. Otherwise shut up. BTW I will be watching you closely. I'm not going to let you abuse new editors with your personal attacks. Caden ^{is cool} 15:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What if they warn you not to watch them? What will you do then? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Get lost. Mind your own business. Caden ^{is cool} 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Caden ^{is cool} 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't issue threats. You issued a threat to me, earlier today, [1] so I'm just making fun of it here. :) Now, if KeltieMartinFan tells me to "get lost" from his page, I'll do so. But you have no authority to tell me not to edit on his page. Nor do you have any authority to tell me not to watch you - especially when you tell someone else that you'll be watching him. Anyone is free to watch any page they want to here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you, I warned you (there's a big difference). I know bullies like you stick up for other bullies like Keltie, but I'm not falling victim to your game. I'm walking away dude. In real life I never back down from a fist fight but on wiki it's not worth the political stink. I'm walking away. Caden ^{is cool} 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there is a big difference. As a threat, it was empty. And as a warning, it was a joke, as neither you nor anyone has either the authority or the power to make good on such a warning. Wikipedia is a public site, and my Aunt Minnie can watch you too, whether you like it or not. Oddly enough, I see folks like you and the recent IP address sockfarm as being the real bullies, especially when they start throwing words like "fistfight" around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More Crap

Regarding this, what issue do you have with explaining what a "couric" is in the context of the episode? It's clearly fictional and given how much Bono is made fun of, it's not that insulting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Ricky on this one. What exactly is your problem Keltie? It's NOT insulting. Are you an obsessed fanatic for Katie Couric? Grow up dude! Caden ^{is cool} 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think it's insulting to be equated to excrement, what would you consider to be an insult? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You :) Caden ^{is cool} 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're funny. You must have spent that months-long topic-ban writing some new material for the show. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even put two and two together, just randomly editing. Guys, leave it alone. If you want to discuss it, we can continue on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall, it would probably be best if Keltie himself would speak to it. He's understandably keeping kind of a low profile after the IP address brouhaha yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He won't speak for himself because he's guilty as sin and he knows it too. Understandably so, since that's the way most cowards do it. Caden ^{is cool} 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can both of you just knock it off? It's also possible that he does have an outside life. I'm sorry I brought up the random other article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —Travis^talk 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KeltieMartinFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting permission to edit on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. I have an incident that I was writing up the moment prior to being blocked on here explaining my block request and the incident involving me and another user, but did not have a chance to post it for obvious reasons. It is regarding this particular block and the user Caden (talk · contribs), the one who demanded I be blocked to begin with.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: Just write your statement here, I will copy it to WP:AN/I. — Aitias // discussion 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. Thank you for allowing me to do this.

 Done ([2]) — Aitias // discussion 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of that report and the discussion there, I have unblocked you. DGG (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incident report against User:Caden

I have reasons to believe that Caden (talk · contribs) has some unsettling grudge against me which stemmed from an incident that occurred on this noticeboard two-and-a-half weeks ago. Therefore as a way to get back at me, he puts his hands on certain articles which, up until that particular point, he has no particular interest in, but are of my personal interest nonetheless. I believe that he is only doing this simply as a way to get under my skin. The incident from 2.5 weeks ago did not fall in his favor, and I think the bitterness of all that still lingers with him to this very day apparently.

He left a comment on my talk page shortly after the forum closed on that particular incident saying ‘’I will be watching you closely.’’ In my opinion, the way he wrote this particular comment on my talk page, it came off as if he was going to plan some type of personal revenge against me the next time I did any type of edit on Wikipedia, constructive or not. It’s one thing to keep an eye on a particular editor to see if he/she does anything that constitute a violation on here. But to keep what appears to be a 24-hour surveillance on a certain editor, and react to almost every single edit he/she makes, even if it is a justifiable one, that comes off, simply put it, as one particular editor planning a personal vendetta on another particular editor. If I’m not mistaken, that would be grounds of violation under the Wikipedia:Harassment guidelines on the part of the perpetrating editor.

As for this current incident at hand, Caden has been doing edits on one of my particular article of interest as of lately, the Deal or No Deal (US) models. While the edits he put on this article does come off as constructive, it does not excuse the fact that he has never touched this article ever until May 8, 2009. The only reason I suspect that he is doing it now is because of me and the whole initial incident 2.5 weeks earlier.

The Deal or No Deal article is only one of three articles of my own interested that Caden has been messing with so far. The other two are Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe, talk-show personalities for The Today Show on NBC. I made edits on these two articles only because facts on these two articles were not entirely correct, and I simply wanted to make them exactly so. Shortly after I make this minor corrective edits, Caden would come in and revert virtually all corrections I made back to the original “not-entirely” correct facts. This has been going on three times in the last 24-hours. Again, Caden has not edited either one of these articles until today. I bet you he only messed with these articles not because he knows anything about these two talk show personalities, but because he wanted to get back at me. He wants payback!!!

And to add insult to injury, he gave me this warning[[3]] for this edit war that he himself started. I did not even do four consecutive reverts as he stated.

Once again, this is all stemming back from an incident that happened 2.5 weeks ago. To say the very least, I am very disappointed that this particular editor has been carrying this grudge against me for as long as he did. Caden has a recent history of incivility towards other editors than myself. I strongly recommended an administrator hand some type of warning down for his incivility against me. I do not get involved in Caden’s personal interest here on wikipedia whether it’s Major League Soccer, Penthouse or anything pertaining to the adult film industry because they are of no interest to me. I do have respect for others editors whose interests are in these particular articles, and will not mingle in their businesses. Apparently, Caden cannot do the same for others. It’s very unfortunate it has to come to this. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility has been a constant problem with Caden. But in this particular case, Wikipedia:Harassment might be more to the point, especially the part about "stalking". When someone reverts your changes just to be reverting, that's stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. I didn't think of that. I'll change that and keep it in mind for future reference. Other than that, it's good to see you again, Bugs.  ;-) KeltieMartinFan (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to modify the above. I'll just restate it below, to add to the confusion:

Civility has been a constant problem with Caden. But in this particular case, Wikipedia:Harassment might be more to the point, especially the part about "stalking". When someone reverts your changes just to be reverting, that's stalking. The admin already posted your text, so this is just FYI. The admins will easily be able to tell that your complaint refers to what looks like stalking behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, which I believe was pointed out in ANI, neither of you actually exceeded 3 reverts in 24 hours, but the ping-pong effect there can still be considered edit warring. In future, if you get reverted twice, it's probably best to bring it to the authorities rather than pushing it to the 3R limit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I anticipated Caden reverting a third time. In fact, I anticipated he would continue after the first go around. So that was when I started to write this statement, and luck would have it, I got blocked before I could post it. Oh well. No biggie. It's posted now thanks to User:Aitias. But you are definately right, I should have bring it to the authorities sooner rather than pushing it. Oh well, I live and learn. It's not the end of the world. Right now my day is pretty much through. I don't really have other articles that I truely want to edit now even if I wasn't blocked. So therefore, I'll just wait it out for a day, and see what unfolds. Perhaps watch a movie. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could rent an entire season's worth of 24. That would pretty well rub out the waiting period. :) P.S. Caden apparently appealed his block. But I think they turned him down. I don't know for sure, since I'm not allowed to watch his page. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, not much of a 24 or a Kiefer Sutherland fan, although I do like Mary Lynn Rajskub. But that's besides the point I suppose. But I do get what you're saying. Very funny. I'll admit. I'll give you props on that. I did get a laugh out of it. In any case, perhaps I should just carry on with the rest of my day. I'll check back later to see what unfolds. Take care. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

User:DGG has unblocked you. In the future, don't edit war. Just don't. If you feel you are being hounded, there various forms of dispute resolution that you really should pursue. This is the second time you have been brought up at WP:AN/I, when the situation would easily be solved if you had brought it up with admins rather than fighting back. AniMate^draw 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both you and DDG for understanding the situation I was going through. Do I consider myself a Wikipedia expert, by no stretch of the imagination. But little by little, I am learning the process to be a better wikipedian. I will keep what you said in mind for future reference. Thank you again. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading all of the above, I find that I agree with DGG and am pleased that he unblocked you. If you feel that you're being called out by another editor again, feel free to drop me (or pretty much any other admin) a note rather than taking the bait. Happy editing. —Travis^talk 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I really do appreciate the kind gesture. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden

Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While I fully understand your sentiments and those of the poster, it's probably best not to taunt someone like Caden. It's not going to change his approach to things, and in fact only further justifies his world-view in his own mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments, and Caden

In general, it is considered bad form to go back and change your comments after others have already replied to them; see WP:REDACT. Small grammar fixes might be okay if made quickly after the original writing, but making them after the comments have been up for a week is unnecessary. Significantly adding to them (as opposed to adding a properly-dated new comment later on the page) is highly inappropriate and potentially deceptive, as it makes others appear to have replied to something that wasn't there when they replied. It's just not a good thing to do.

As far as the issue with Caden, it's been a more than a week since he made a change anywhere other than his own user and talk pages, and four days since even those. Nor does it appear that any anon that could be him has edited any of the pages you linked to, nor any of the other pages in your recent contributions. It looks like Caden's gone, and as such, you ought to just let the whole thing go, too; commenting further on it reeks of wikidrama. John Darrow (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought was I was just only doing minor edits on my own talk page. It never crossed to me that minor edits on my own talk page would be noticed, let alone potentially harmful as you stated. But knowing that, I will keep that in mind for the future, and most likely archive everything. Thank you for the notice KeltieMartinFan (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tui T. Sutherland

The site itself says it is a "fan site for fans". There is a discussion at WP:RSN. Also, I did do the research, and could find no reliable sources. I actually watched the shows she was on, but just putting something into Wikipedia based on what you saw is OR. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What we are discussing about is a numerical figure. There is nothing debatable about that. Either number is right or wrong. If it was wrong, then we go on and fix it. Plain and simple. Now it would be uncharacteristic of me to say that you are not telling the truth, but if you did do your research AND watched the episodes that Tui was on, then my next question to you is...why the HECK are you still tagging the edit with questionable citation when you know for a fact that the information on there is actually correct? That does not make sense. Either you are not telling the truth, or you are telling the truth and your actions toward Tui’s article and your own admission to me is going to be subjected to scrutiny. None of the editors who have put edits of Tui’s game on Jeopardy intended to put false or biased information on her article. We are just simply stating what happened? Nothing less, nothing more. Why can’t you just let those edits be? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On a sidenote, what in the world do you mean by OR? Oregon?

OR=Original Research. I'm tagging it because we have yet to provide a reliable source. WP:V requires reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding my first question, which gives me the impression of how much of a credible editor you really are.KeltieMartinFan (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not avoid your first question. I am not debating that the information is correct. My concern is that it is not sourced to a reliable source. The answer I gave you was the answer to the question. Please read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What was all that Squawk about anyways?

Seen the Quick article lately? And you're ahead by how many blocks?  : D

(Seriously)

You once tried to give an IP editor some advice. Here’s something more sound that may assist you in the future.

Don’t edit just holding your opinions. Edit armed with the facts.

Granted that you grasp Wikipedia procedures. But that is not the sole indicator of editing success. (You appear to be an NBA fan. Tell me this: how many championship rings did Dikembe Mutumbo get producing all of his blocks?)

You NEVER had a real chance with your viewpoint because you NEVER had the facts on your side. Really, how did you think you were going to win?

Wielding Wikipedia policies is no substitute for the truth. You never, ever, reached out to get the data that would support you. You burrowed yourself into Wikipedia-speak. Is that what you’re trying to accomplish as an editor?

So, here now at this virtual Appomattox, let me Grant you a bit of Leeway: Pursue an honorable end. Recognize your errors. Learn from them and acknowledge what is real.

68.50.128.120 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your words

Your recent comments on this IPs talk page seem to be fairly inappropriate. Please reconsider your words. --Onorem♠Dil 13:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you please specify which comments I need to reword. It would greatly be appreciated. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"by obnoxious editors like you"

".they were ALL silenced one way or another"

I disagree with some of the other statements you've made there, but don't see a reason to request that they be reconsidered in this situation. --Onorem♠Dil 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So noted about the "obnoxious" statement. But when an editor is not being civil, am I suppose to pretend that he or she is otherwise? Not everybody who edit on wikipedia are civil, and a lot of times they really are as I incline to describe them. Surely you have to admit that.

And to further my cause about this editor, he just reverted your edit on Rebecca Quick’s article back to the same controversial edit he's been trying to have stick for well over an hour. That is his fourth consecutive revert. Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t that a violation of a 3-edit rule, and the consequences for that is a 24-hour block? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA doesn't go away just because you're correct. There's no benefit for you calling them obnoxious. It's only likely to inflame the situation. As far as the revert, he's been reported to the proper noticeboard for it. That's where I noticed the situation. --Onorem♠Dil 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How exactly am I giving him a free pass? What do you expect that I do to stop him other than revert a few times and try to explain why the information should be removed until there is a source for it? I did request page protection in case that noticeboard might have a quicker response. --Onorem♠Dil 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The unsource controversial edit is still appearing on Rebecca Quick's article for the eighth time. That is giving him a free pass. Otherwise, he should be blocked right now. Secondly you come off as an administrator, unless if I'm mistaken. So to answer your second question...YES, you are expected to stop him. Because that's what administrators do to violators of the 3RR rule. But as I can see that's not happening, which makes you just as guilty for not stopping it than the other editor for causing the problem. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What good do you expect to come from reasserting your comment? Seriously? This isn't about "you." --Onorem♠Dil 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It isn't about me. It's about you and all the other administrators who put up with this nonsense 24/7/365. Be thankful that I'm defending your honor. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I'm not putting up with nonsense. Your taunting is not helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I have no reason to be arguing with you since you & I more or less think alike in overall view of editing here. Nobody's perfect. Surely, I'm not. But at the end of the day, I have no regret for what I've done because I did my part to make sure obnoxious editors (you read right, I did say the "o" word) are not given the free will to put whatever random things they feel like putting on any articles here on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk)

Reminder

While your work is very much appreciated here, please try to remember to maintain civility and use appropriate edit summaries. I know it can be frustrating and tedious to remove unsourced material, but it comes with the territory of editing Wikipedia. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Robin Meade

Just wanted to say, fair enough. My view towards this is obviously different from yours, but that being said, it's too silly to wage war on, so I concede. Have fun... Kuzosake (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

I'm not inclined, based on your previous behavior, to alert you of this, but I have reported you for edit-warring re: Rebecca Quick. There is a talk page at her entry for discussion, and I recommend you use it. (Several other editors previously involved in this matter have been alerted for their input.)

Good luck in your endeavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t need luck on here. I’m not the one who doesn’t follow the rules here. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Luck is all some folks can rely on. : )

162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that you, KeltieMartinFan, are not following the rules either. Wikipedia users are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. This right was enshrined in the official Vandalism policy 1,312 days ago [4], and reinforced in the User page guideline 912 days ago [5]. Due to continuing confusion regarding if anonymous editors are considered "users," the WP:BLANKING sub-section of WP:USER was changed 494 days ago [6] to explicity state that this right applied to "both registered and anonymous users" equally.

As such, your restoration of comments [7] on User talk:162.6.97.3 looks like a violation of Wikipedia rules. Assuming you do not hold youself above three years of Wikipedia concensus on this issue, perhaps you might want to consider reverting yourself. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For your information, the person editing under IP address 162.6.97.3 DOES NOT have ownership of that address. That IP address belongs to a government agency, the American Red Cross, and NOT of a residential or non-corporate area. More than likely, a person employed at the ARC has been using corporate computers to do his wikipedia edits, and NOT in the privacy of his own home. Other people can use this IP address and may not be aware of what's been going on, and those comments are necessary to warn them. So therefore, the rule stating that "Wikipedia users are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages" DOES NOT apply to this situation for the simple fact that it is NOT "their own talk page". KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Who owns an IP is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy allows editors to remove messages from the talk page associated with their account. Regardless of if you agree with this long standing rule, your revert is in violation of it. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Meredith Vieira.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Meredith Vieira.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gage (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Meredith Vieira.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Meredith Vieira.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.flickr.com/photos/page47/2706338695/. As a copyright violation, File:Meredith Vieira.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Meredith Vieira.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Meredith Vieira.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Meredith Vieira.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Meredith Vieira.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Gage (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Jenna Wolfe.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jenna Wolfe.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.flickr.com/photos/11789261@N05/3420734934/. As a copyright violation, File:Jenna Wolfe.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jenna Wolfe.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Jenna Wolfe.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Jenna Wolfe.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Jenna Wolfe.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Gage (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello KeltieMartinFan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 936 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jennifer Hall - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ainsley Earhardt

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ainsley Earhardt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainsley Earhardt. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)