User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 1

Thanks for the article on New York Women's House of Detention.

---

Welcome!

Hello Shell Kinney/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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 20:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the welcome! Jareth 22:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Correction Error

Your correction as part of Project Punctuation caused two Image tags to fail to close properly. See: [1].

Dragons flight 02:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got interested in the discussion there and didn't double-check my work. I'll have to be more careful to check the result. Thanks for catching that! --.:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Acording to your user page, you can not describe yourself without Questions, so here's a few. What is your Political Ideology or Philosophy (e.g. Social Democracy, Centrism, Tory. What is your Religion. If not religious, Secular Moral Philosophy (e.g. Secular Humanism. Where were you born. Where do you live.

I find that I'm not very politically motivated, of course there's not much in the U.S these days to motivate me. Its like watching two village idiots mud wrestle until one of them can't stand any longer; no matter who wins, they're covered in mud and still nothing more than the local fool. Most of my political-leaning activities are with non-profit organizations devoted to fixing things that politics has so enthusiastically screwed up. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the government as a whole is inherently bad, but this thing we call politics is nothing more than enforcing ones own beliefs and vanity on as many people as will put up with you.

Religion...hmm, that's another word I've really come to dislike. I think religion has very little to do with spirituality anymore; in the U.S. at least, its become an institution. If I had to come up with a description for my beliefs, I'd say they're a mix of Wiccan and [Buddhism|Buddhist]] traditions; its an earth-mother/balance oneself type of belief.

I was born, raised and generally found myself stuck in Ohio, U.S. -- .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Soapbox of the day

Why, oh why must people come here and post two line vanity articles? Are we so insecure that a few moments of our name in an online encyclopedia really makes a difference? And why not use the millions of appropriate places to run off about yourself? Just imagine the vfD page without the vanity -- beautiful site, eh? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish June 30, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Brianellner

Hi, I erased the page not only because of copyright, but also because the page is wrongly named (the real page is Brian Ellner, who is also under copyright), and so shall be deleted.--Revas 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Satta Dea

Hi Jareth, thanks for your message. With regard to Satta Dea I realised that the more common form of the name is actually Satiada only after creating it: that's why i had to blank it for fear of accusations of inaccuracy which i simply could bear. Maybe it may be best to merge Satta Dea with Satiada by way of enhancement. I think you'll find that all the other recent additions to Celtic deities are not blanked. I should be overjoyed if you were to expand them.GeoffMGleadall 6 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Thanks..

... for taking the time to revert the vandalism to the SHSU page. Madmaxmarchhare 7 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Template:DeleteBecause

The renameing of all the speedy deletion templates to a common naming pattern was discussed during the TfD of {{tl|nn-bio}} now {{tl|Db-bio}}. I am in the process of fixing the references and documentation pages. Since a redirect was created by the move, existing pages shouldn't have been broken -- which ones are broken and in what ways? I said during the nn-bio discussion that i would fix this as soon as that TfD was closed, which happened today. I discussed it with the closser of teh TfD, also. I am actually tryign to be helpful here, not a problem. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: Ah, I hadn't seen the TfD discussion on nn-bio. I still think its an incredibly clunky change though. What I was referring to as broken was any page were the DB template had been used; they all displayed 1. Redirect db-reason.

Ah, there was a double-redir. I have now fixed that: {{tl|db}} now redirects to {{tl|db-reason}} instead of to {{tl|DeleteBecause}}. Basically the idea is that ALL the speedy deletion tempaltes will now start "Db-" so they will all group right together in the category listing that the admins use to pick arts for speedy deleteion. This was at the request of several such admins, who otherwise objected to teh existance of multiple speedy deletion templates. I'll be fixing the other links and any double redirs shortly. Note that DB and Deletebecause will still work, as they will be redirs. Is that ok with you? DES ^(talk) 20:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Banco Internacional do Funchal

No problem. Glad to have been of some help. Greaterlondoner

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

Hi, I have added a task to your desk. Andreww 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Maurice L. Lagarde

You correctly tagged this for speedy this morning. The creator has returned and spruced up the article, and IMHO done a good job of meeting at least minimum notability requirements. I've removed the Speedy tag for now. But I wanted to alert you, as the original speedy tagger, so you could have a chance to place it back under Speedy, or toss it up for AFD, if you still beleive it's notability is not adequitely shown. TexasAndroid 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Steadman...

When edit wars get this bad? Believe me, seen worse... much worse. :) But I do agree that your suggestions have a lot of merit, and I've very glad you've put in a strong word for some enlightened compromise. I've had painful past experience of similar cases (plethora of accounts suddenly appearing to edit the same single topic, and nothing else, and with diametrically opposed views on it). I also likely won't be around much for the next couple of weeks, so excuse me if I've not a great deal of help there. Alai 00:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I must admit that when I started I hadn't realised what a long job it was going to be... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only assume that your recent edit [2] to this article, with an edit summary of "rvv by 203.218.90.170" was was a cut and paste mistake. It was not a revert to the previous version by UkPaolo, but instead re-inserted some inappropriate POV language such as "He is, essentially, an amateur", "Steadman uses plodding rhythms and obvious melodies", and "...these pieces are commonly regarded as mawkish and sentimental". MCB 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup - Cheers, MCB 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Template:Suicide

I have a possible solution to the dispute on Template talk:Suicide#Compromise proposal. When you have time, take a look at it and note your possible assent or not in the appropriate section. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

nn-bio template

In my opinion, {{tl|nn-bio}} didn't fit on Lilian Bernas, because the article did, in fact assert the notability of its subject. The key is the word "assert." The article was asserting that she was notable because she exhibited stigmata. Of course, that needed to be NPOV'ed, so it now asserts that she claims to have exhibited stigmata. This still may not be notable enough to continue to include an article on her, but it does at least assert significance. I also found several links on the subject with Google. If you still want, you could list the article on WP:AFD, but in my opinion, it was not a speedy delete under the criteria. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry if I messed up your RfA in any way, changing my vote then getting into that conversation with JCarriker. Good luck with it, anyhow! NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 10:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Love your work on HelpDesk-l

Yours too. I've taken the courtesy of "borrowing" your templates (Humblefool has a list somewhere... erm... here) - they're very good. Keep up the good work, Alphax ^τεχ 14:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) PS. I took the liberty of un-<blockquot>ing your talk page. Hope you don't mind.

Greetings!

Hi there! Thank you for responding to the recent RfC regarding the Terminator as a cyborg. I appreciate your attempts at arriving at a compromise. While I acknowledge that the definiton of the term "cyborg" is dubious and has garnered dual meanings (e.g., bionic humans vis-à-vis hybrids like The Terminator) and do not disagree with some of what has been suggested, my huge beef has been with certain users advancing a viewpoint without clearly citing their sources (and I mean the notion that T is not a cyborg, as the antagonist implies, not definitions merely saying he's something else), which still hasn't occurred. Make sense?

With all of this in mind, I've also proposed an alternate similar note to JRs for possible inclusion in the cyborg article. I'd appreciate it if you can weigh in on it, edit it, comment, and help diffuse what has been a very lengthy discussion over what may be not what. Please also let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your added input; I really appreciate it! I largely agree with you and have responded; I've explained my reasoning behind my prior note and why it may be necessary to generalise mentions of T (merely as "constructed beings"); however, I'm flexible. In any event, I advocate for either no note (as you suggest) or JR's subsequent note. If you will, please weigh in once more to 'finalise' this ... I hope this is resolved soon. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I hear you! Personally: I don't prefer to travel from New York City to Philadelphia via Tokyo. :) Moreover (and you don't need to comment), do you think I've been 'off the wall' or somewhat justified regarding this (note this has largely been in response to the antagonist's outright deletions and uncited (methinks) position)? Anyhow, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input and kind words; I appreciate it! Yes: an impasse doesn't begin to describe this ... discussion. This has been all the more perplexing as the antagonist is a Wp administrator; to me, the admittedly lengthy discussion (and refusal to provide sources and see reason) demonstrates the antagonist's lack of good judgement.

And while I love science fiction, and somewhat agree with your husband regarding Star Wars (Star Trek is more my forté), I generally stay away from other forms of fiction because, well (as recently evidenced, here and elsewhere), truth is stranger than fiction. (Speaking of good times (and rarely bad): friction, however, is a completely different matter ... ;)) Thanks again!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! Thank you again for helping me to frolic that much sooner. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good! I love the book, but I'm not at all fond of the recent movie. Anyhow, hailing frequencies closed ... but feel free to reopen them if desired. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we fully concur that the recent movie is a plague on humanity with erroneous characterisation, devoid of intelligent discourse, and an insult to the book. (Oh: forgive my derogatory language!) E Pluribus Anthony 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've turned a head or two in my day, too, and fro-licking all the while. (he he) :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and my pleasure ... though I can't speak for yours just yet. :) Good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you did on my talk page...

Thanks! I'm an admin...computer tech...and I somehow couldn't figure it out. :) What was it? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully it won't happen again! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Tidy html is broken, so all open html tags are suddenly unbound--Hello fromSPACE 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

One must call them as they see them. Good luck. Thanks.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the nice message, and look forward to supporting a future vote, if that is even necessary. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA

You're very welcome; I wish you the best of luck in your nomination. And I've got to give credit to my gf for introducing me to Labyrinth. --Merovingian 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Boilerplates

I think we just twice sent identical boiler-plates to two HelpDesk queries... Maybe there should be a better queue system in place here! jnothman ^talk 04:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The only solutions I can think of involve software development to manage the queue. I assume systems already exist for such a task: lists unhandled emails, click to view; click reply and send through web interface or email, but once reply is clicked, it is locked as if handled, unless no reply is given within a certain timeout period... Still, I'm not sure how easily this could be incorporated into the current mailing-list system. jnothman ^talk 07:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Jareth, sorry for the tardy response. I had voted neutral on your RfA as I thought that the contribs to the user talk space were on the lower side. I did not factor the possibility of using other fora such as e-mail and chat and am beginning to feel bad abt it. However, given the way the voting has proceeded so far, I am definite that you will be equipped with the mop and the bucket. So, I'm here to congratulate you in advance. Congratulations!! --Gurubrahma 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys and Dolls

But aren't you a member of the 'unfair' sex, at heart?! Anyone who has a probing curiosity (like me) will learn that you – generally – have a ... socket; that's good enough reason to probe further. (I have a somewhat hybrid brain and perspective on this and that, so if I'm being at all crass, please let me know; I'm speaking wholly in joustjest.) :) And if I'm not being 'premature', congrats on your impending adminship! E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Comments on My Discussion Page Were Unwelcome

I have never broken the 3 revert rule. EOM.--24.55.228.56 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am dealing with an extreme POV editor who is attempting to destroy the E. Fuller Torrey page with antipsychiatry nonsense. The list of edits you just published to my discussion page is testament that my edits are thoughtful, accurate, and do not violate the 3R rule. Back off and stop harrassing me.--24.55.228.56 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jareth, thanks for wikifying the article I created Charles Allen Culbertson for the Lodge Committee--I just knew there was someone out there who likes to this type of stuff. Thanks. Travb 14:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your RFA

Hello Jareth, regarding my opposition to your RFA, don't take offence, but you clearly haven't been interacting with the community enough. Even message which you left on my talk page was unsigned (messages are supposed to be singed with four tildes ~~~~ and this will produce your name, the time and date). If you check the edit counter you would see that you haven't participated much on talk pages considering how long you have been here and how many edits you have made to articles (which are very good). Anyway, despite my vote, I still think that you will get it. Good luck! Izehar 16:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are keen, aren't you? Well I've changed my vote - after reading everyone else's glowing comments about you I changed my mind, I sincerely hope you get it. Izehar 16:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, I've also reconsidered and changed my vote. While it appears to be after the voting deadline, and though it looks as if you would get adminship anyway even without the vote change, perhaps it will provide an extra boost to help the bureacrat making the decision. A couple of things influenced me, 1) I did just yesterday run across some of your comments on a page I was commenting on, 2) the fact that you're involved on the helpdesk-l gave me a better picture of your involvement with others, and 3) the fact that you thanked editors for voting even if they didn't support you shows good grace, and I can appreciate that. Anyway, good luck as an admin : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations Jareth! : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well; glad to see it turned around for you after all. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Me three! ;) E Pluribus Anthony 22:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wife Swap

Since it was turning into a revert war and--full disclosure--I do have a history with Gastrich, I'm not touching that page. But you should be aware that the link was changed merely from Reggie's blog to Reggie's online "chat" forum. Now, Reggie and his wife Amber were the ones on the show in question but it's still hearsay as to what happened "behind the scenes" of that episode. Hearsay that if the production company gets upset about could expose the Wikipedia to all kinds of, ahem, fun. Mark K. Bilbo 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ligiea

Actually, I was thinking it was a copyvio when I saw it created but a quick search didn't turn up anything. I had set a watch on it to see if anything more was done to it, and forgot I put it on my watchlist. :)

It could be original research, as well. --Syrthiss 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with them. I'll keep it on my watchlist (and probably forget about it again haha), and help with any improvements I can. --Syrthiss 17:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Steadman&diff=30499387&oldid=30495829

I wonder if this is since he received a warning about behaviour? Vhjh 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I actually received the warning later, thank you. I still don't understand why I got a warning. I have provided a list of behaviours that breach the wiki codes. I'd be well within my rights to be the one demanding investigation and action - but I'm not so petty. For goodness sake, spend 10 minutes looking at my edits. I did add links several times - but I gave reasons for doing so. If one looks carefully, it's apparent that YOUR edits have been reverted at least as often as mine, so why the constant campaigning against me.Crusading composer 00:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anna2005

Oh, bless you. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 20:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I revert at will on the Talk page (for now), since we don't want to protect that?--SarekOfVulcan 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, you forgot the vprotected template...--SarekOfVulcan 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism RfC

While I agree that the RFC page is not a place to continue the argument, I would prefer that you revert your change. The current RFC was posted by an anonymous ip who has been reverting the RFC and making personal attacks and legal threats all day on Talk:Veganism. In particular, this ip authored the "Skinwalker's snitching lies...", "Skinwalker's dishonest and hysterical accusations", and "Viriditas Continues his personal attack..." section headings, and has filed a frivolous user conduct RFC against me. The link to livejournal was added by Viriditas and has been examined by an admin, and it's very relevant to the RFC because it substantiates the charge of meatpuppetry. Again, please revert your change, or discuss it further with me. Thanks! Skinwalker 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and especially for responding to the RfC. We really, really need some independent voices on this article. The user actually has a dynamic IP address, so he's back and up to his usual business. Bleh. I'm OK with the RFC staying the way it is, now that I think about your rationale for editing it. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your improvement of the Grand Illumination article. Mark. Vaoverland 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Heya,

I just thought I would say thanks for helping out with the conflict Shiloh Shepherd Dog, i feel lame that I have not done more to help out there.

- Trysha ^(talk) 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Help Desk Email

I just realized that I have been using your extremely useful boilerplate messages from the email list with out asking your permission. I will not continue to do so. Sorry. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, thank you. That meta page is awesome:-) WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 02:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks

Thank you for your e-mail. Understood and accepted your concern about Valery Alexeev. Don't agree with the Eflatun issue still. Eflatun link from Plato page was not inserted by myself. So leaving the responsibility about this issue to other wikipedians.

User : Anlagan 16 December 2005

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you! Sam Sloan 12:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Tom Dorsch biography, you are simply wrong. If you will go to the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics and search for postings by [email protected] you will find that he has posted 2680 times to that group. That is two thousand six hundred eighty times. Tom Dorsch has written and posted extensively on such subjects as bargirls in Tijuana. There is nothing in my biography of him that can be considered a personal attack, especially since it is based on what Dorsch himself wrote. In addition, Dorsch has run for election and been elected several times to public office in chess. Thus, others have a right to express their views. Dorsch himself is aware of this biography can modify it himself if he disagrees. Sam Sloan 12:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, You do an awesome job on the Help Desk. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

User:Theodore7

User:Theodore7 simply ignores the warning you have given and continuing 3RR violation. Please look at [3]. Also please see his response to your warning: User talk:Theodore7. --BorgQueen 02:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Theodore7 RESPONSE: I did not ignore the warning BorgQueen; I did not see it in time. I also apologized to Jareth for the statement. I did not mean it to sound that way and it was not directed to be mean or spiteful. You know I am new here, but that does not mean I am stupid. I was goaded and then they run to an editor before even entering in discussion and concensus on the subject matter. That is not how you introduce yourself to another editor: by using the Talk Page to attack, and not welcome, and discuss when one has a problem. I stumbled onto that Page and glad I did. As a scholar on Nostradamus and an expert on judicial astrology and astrology in general - it appeared I came in at the right time. Someone, perhaps several people, are doing some not-so-nice things on Wikipedia subjects. I read this was common, and just accidentially ran into it on the Astrology-related subjects via links.

Moreover, would suggest you first participate in discussion on talk page with respect; rather than first deleting the balanced materials entered and this using Talk Page in a immature fashion. This was done several times on the page with no initial discussion, but attacks - and this does not lead to consensus among editors.

Suggest before making conclusionary statements on materials - that "balance" is sought - esp. when they violate Wikipedia NPOV with skewed materials & obviously negative conclusionary statements placed high up in the subject introduction. There is plenty of room for this in the Skeptical section; however, if you look carefully, you'll see a concerted effort to enter very negative, and pointed statements taking away from the subject matter according to the personal point of view of some writers on the astrology-related pages and links.

Appreciate it if you would use the Talk Pages with the purpose they are used for rather than goading others into being blocked and then bringing this to the attention of an editor. They are busy enough without having to deal with goading. If you have a problem with an entry - suggest you follow your own advice and use the Talk Page to reach out nicely, rather than immediately editing and making copy-editor-type conclusionary one-liners and statements on the Wikipedia subject, and not using the Talk Page to start consensus or knowledge of the subject. There are people out there who are not kind, or respectful first and they do not debate straight up - they ATTACK - and go through subjects like a raging fire - entering very unbalanced, and high negative statement designed to lead AWAY from discovery - which is opposed to what Wikipedia is all about. I cannot stand others writing very negative and conclusionary statements on subjects they have taken a personal/professional bias on - out on a "mission" and attempt to turn things in the direction they want - while using the "ruse" of accusing others they want to oppose of doing JUST THAT. It always amazes me how childish and sad these actions are. However - I look forward to talking with you on the Pages in a meaningful, honest, and respectful manner. I enjoy good crisp writing, great editing, fun, learning, teaching, of HONEST factual knowledge that seeks to expand knowledge through learning -with balance and copious information - not to purposefully restrict or demean subject matter with rude, directed negative conclusionary statements stated as FACT. Wikipedia is a great resource, and I am giving money to them to keep up the good work because they are about EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE - not restricting it. I can read and am a experienced, professional journalist and writer - and I can tell the difference between the two kinds - expansion and restriction of knowledge. I prefer expansion, balance, honesty and lots of good information. That's more attractive to me than reducing subjects to negative, restrictive POV designed to lead away from learning and towards a skewed point of view diguised as "knowledge" for the sake of leading astray. That is anti-Wikipedia and I am NOT about that.24.21.192.183 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Please do not use rollback to revert something that is not vandalism (in fact, the reversion to a redirect is close to vandalism, as no merging was done). --SPUI (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read it, and fully disagree with the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabian Basabe

Hi, any chance you can revert Dan100's two-times reversion of the slander out of the article? I've reached my 3RR limit. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

I was wondering why you were reverting the article to a version with some rather POV statements? I know that the article lists several sources like the Tribune and the Post, but it doesn't link to any article verifying that to be true (the links are to the Wiki articles on the Tribune and Post) -- the only external links provided look like glorified tabloids. Could be wrong, but I don't know if we should allow the text to remain there unless its properly sourced. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Because no-one was explaining why they were removing material, which on the face of it is simple vandalism!

Edit summaries, people, use edit summaries! (And make them meaningful) Dan100 (Talk) 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IPs write that sort of edit summary all the time with no evidence for their claims - it's impossible to view that as anything other than simple vandalism. A proper explanation on the talk page and an edit summary of "see talk" was all that was needed. Dan100 (Talk) 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR...

After you warned him, User:Commonsenses went ahead and violated 3RR three more times. (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Commonsenses, i haven't added in the third revert yet). --Jiang 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re: File:Downs Deidre Miss USA 2005.jpg

OK, thanks for getting back to me. That helps me learn about what is and is not copyvio. 'Preciate it. Too bad it has to go, 'cause it's probably harmless, but I understand why the rules have to be followed. Herostratus 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re: 3RR violation reported

Yes I came to be aware of that, and I have no intentions to revert further. Any new cases of reversions on his part will be reported, although I dont really have a clue as to where to do it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your compassion and fairness in dealing with this case.--Huaiwei 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. I apologise for any inconvenience, and thank you again for the help rendered! ;D--Huaiwei 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll delete my own stuff thanks Freemasonry

If I want to remove a comment that I made, then I will do so, ok? Millennium Sentinel 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary cleanup tags on RER Line articles

I have removed cleanup tags on four RER Line articles, as done previously by User:Metropolitan. These seem clearly unjustified, given that the articles in questions are informative, reliable, well-written and reasonably complete. If it is the categorisation which needs "cleaning up", please let this resolve itself, or at least find a way of addressing it without the use of unsightly and misleading banners across the top of the articles. These articles do not need cleaning up. Rollo 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)