User talk:Onorem/Archive 11

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page, unless there is already a section related to your message.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will probably reply both here and on your talk page,
but sometimes I'm lazy...so keep an eye on this page if my reply is important or urgent. ♠

I prefer to keep my talk page history as intact as possible.

Unless there is a BLP violation or personal attack on someone other than myself, please do not remove comments left here by other users.

IP talk page blanking and BLP censorship of article talk[edit]

User:Rjd0060[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#new_admin_User:Rjd0060stalks.5Cblocks_2_keep_his_edit_saved
Pls weigh in. Thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really something that needs to be escalated? There currently doesn't appear to be a consensus on IP talk page blanking. Was it really that big of a deal that you needed to edit war over it until your page got locked? I've made my opinion clear on the Village Pump and AN/I. I'm not going to participate in a third discussion unless some sort of consensus emerges from one of the other two. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I'm not sure the COI/N noticeboard is really the appropriate place to bring the matter. As it says at the top of the page there, issues with administrators may be more suited to requests for comment on administrator conduct. I'd recommend trying that...or maybe adding a subsection to the AN/I thread if this is really something you feel the need to pursue. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want escalation. I wanted clarification. Ill post to administrator conduct page. Thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA re this change, it's because it's a blocked user reverting several users. He got caught out and isn't happy about it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's trolling no matter where it is, but someone else reverted the IP who reverted me. Not sure if you got reverted again. I just thought that since it was a blocked IP removing it, it s hould be reverted. Actually when I first saw it on my watchlist I thought it was pure IP vandalism TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:Cassie (singer)[edit]

Your edits to Talk:Cassie (singer) are very likely to lead to another quick block. I think you should consider reverting yourself and instead starting a discussion about why you feel certain parts should not be blanked (including reliable sources for each one of them in the discussion) --Onorem ♠Dil 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Ill revert. Where is the proper place 4 discussion on sensoring disc pages? 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your changes have already been reverted, but the Talk:Cassie (singer) page is where I would recommend you attempt to discuss your thoughts. WP:BLP is a very important policy, and it's perhaps enforced too strictly sometimes, but you have to be careful about what information you put on any page here. Don't add anything that is potentially contentious, even to a talk page, unless you can explicitly attribute it to a reliable source. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I put a {{help me}}. Microchip
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACassie_%28singer%29&diff=202334102&oldid=202315113 said]
to try to discuss it with editors but that didnt help. Theditors just kept saying WP:BLP but not saying specificcally where, as that is a long page. A sensored disc page make no sense. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what consensus?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.108.103.64&diff=202577048&oldid=202575856

What consensus. Hello_Control cant site where in wp:blp does it state sensoring disc pages is the way 2 go but wants ti follow me in wiki world? No thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all pages. If there is unsourced contentious material, it should be removed. It's the entire point of the policy. Every discussion I've seen regarding IP talk pages has been an argument over whether or not warnings are allowed to be removed. Never have I seen an argument that the schoolIP or ISP tags should be removed. That's the part where it not being your talk page comes into play. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically inwp:blp does it say to edit discussion pages. Isnt it better for discussion pages to have the questions than for them to be added to the article? If you looks @ the disc pages info on her voice being a soubrette is sensored, info on her risque original "Me&U" mus vid is sensored. This info is true and not libellous, so I dont see why it should be sensored. Isnt it better for the info to be there also as a deterrant for future editors to not add it? But if all future editors see is Cassie is a [sensor] who [censor] when she [sensor] they wont understand. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments from the very top of the page -- some emphasis added

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

There you go. It says to remove them without discussion. If you want to discuss replacing them, I don't see that being a problem...but you're going to need sources even just to discuss them. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHHH finally! Thank You!
Now how do we proceed? If the words\phrases cant be put in, how r they 2 be examined?70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is soubrette not allowed?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.108.103.64&diff=202585695&oldid=202585410
Now he\she is sensoring my discussion page. Is that allowed? Is soubrette banned from wiki ? 70.108.133.81 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to walk away from my desk, and don't have a moment to look into all the possible definitions of the word. If it is potentially contentious, then you can't call her soubrette without providing a reliable source. I do know that continuing to edit war over it will only lead to more blocks. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt disruptive. So he\she can insult me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.108.103.64&diff=cur w no repercussion but I have to be nice?

The word is not being used correctly. 70.108.103.xxx thinks it has to do with the quality of one's singing voice (in an uncomplimentary way) but a quick check of both Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com show that is not the case. The word is being used in a pejorative manner and is unsourced, in any case. I've never heard anything by the artist in question so I don't know how good of a singer she is, but "soubrette" clearly does not apply. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:130.63.210.55[edit]

I have blocked the above (citing talkpage for ease of reference) for 31 hours for attempted harassment.

I should like to make a general comment about an aspect of trolling that I find slightly disturbing - the reaction to being called gay. While I realise that it is said with intent to cause distress, I find it personally distasteful that recipients do find it worrisome. As a straight man with many gay (men and women) friends I don't find being referred to as gay as bothersome, just inaccurate on the part of the other party. They stupid - I me! By reacting negatively to the tag, rather than being concerned by being trolled, is indicative of a negative attitude toward certain sexualities - and is of course going to be picked up upon by the next troll. Anti-homophobism is not "only" politically correct, it is also a useful anti troll weapon.

Um... thanks for letting me gently rant - it certainly is not your "fault" that I felt the above needed saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I react negatively to vandalism...and in instances where I revert someone making a comment calling someone gay, I generally have no doubt about their motivations. I have no strong reaction to being called gay myself, but I'm not going to avoid labeling vandalism as vandalism just because there are people that do... I'm far more disturbed that you felt I needed this message than I was about being called gay. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing big - having gay friends means I generally become a little too militant once in a while, and as an AIV regular I get just a little tired of having kids vandalise WP with the "oh so funny" comment that so and so is gay... I mean - hilarious, and what therefore is funnier that beating up the queers? When I saw your comment regarding the only post warning contrib I guess I just flipped slightly.

Anyhow, I apologise for suggesting that there was the inference of a misunderstanding of the improper suggestion that you were homophobic yourself, and would like to make that very clear. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO FWIEND[edit]

hi? r u a admin! bcoz i am

lolz not reel e

<3 titso14

Impressive. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esai Morales Article[edit]

I cited the transcript from the Bill Maher episode when he made those statements. I believe that it is important to know this information about this person. He says he is an activist and these are important views that explain who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.197 (talk)

I've removed the information again after reading the transcript. Including the war on terror in a list of fake wars is different than saying 9/11 is a conspiracy. He mentions American Drug War, but I'm not sure how that makes it notable enough to mention in his biography. If you want to add information about his views, please use direct quotes from reliable sources. Don't determine for yourself what a living person may or may not have been insinuating. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 comment[edit]

Hey, the 9/11 insinuation wasn't in that transcript. It was said in the Bill Maher Overtime segment that is aired after the show on HBO.com. Sorry I didn't check I should have been more thorough . Here is a link to the 4/4/08 Overtime on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZoBioG8ks

This IS an extremely notable opinion for an activist. Please take the time to watch the segment it is only 10 minutes. It is towards the last minutes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.197 (talk)

I haven't had time to watch the segment yet, and probably won't be able to for several hours. That it is an extremely notable opinion is your opinion (...that's not to say that I disagree). You still need to provide a reliable source that agrees. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript[edit]

Ok this is getting a bit too obsessive, but I want to follow this up because it is important to me and I think to others. When a social activists goes on a show and insinuates that 9/11 was an inside job by the US Government it is notable. Imagine if Bill Gates another social activist/philantopist said this or a senator or anyone else. This is quite notable.

Below is the transcript and you can watch the video of the conversation from the YouTube link I sent to you earlier. Note: The people he is talking about that Bill Maher "went after" were 9/11 truthers, audience members that went to Bill's show and started shouting 9//1 was an inside job and Bill Maher, himself, went into the audience and kicked them out of his show.

Okay here is the transcript:

--Start Transcript-- Esai: 3,000 people die and two days later the administration has everything figured out. It just seems a little too quick too convenient now we have a blank check to go into any country that "harbors terrorists."

Bill: You don't think it was Osama Bin Laden who was behind 9/11?

Esai: You know I don't want to get into this with you because I saw how you went after those people who came to your show. I'm a lover not a fighter. The problem is we self censor, we don't consider conspiracy theories...

Bill: You really don't think it was Osama Bin Laden?

Esai: I really don't know and I don't care.

Bill: You don't care?

Esai: The fact of the matter is hundred of thousands of people died every year through medical problems.

Bill: What the hell does that have do with anything?!

Esai: Cause we don't go after them.

Bill: That's another issue and another problem. --End Transcript--

This is the line that says it all, "You know I don't want to get into this with you because I saw how you went after those people who came to your show." With this and that conspiracy video that he was promoting.

I hope to see his public views acknowledged on his page. This is a fair citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.253.178 (talk)

I still haven't reviewed the link, but I stand by my opinion that it doesn't belong in the article if that's all there is to it. Not unless a reliable source decides that it's a story worth mentioning. My opinion would be exactly the same if Bill Gates or some senator made the comment and it went ignored by everyone other than bloggers. I have no more authority than anyone else over the article though, so I can't just keep removing it because I don't like it...although we both have to abide by the three revert rule. I'm not sure we're in need of dispute resolution yet, but the talk page for the Esai Morales article doesn't see much traffic, so it might be best to start by looking for a third opinion. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a third source[edit]

Tonight, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor reported directly on Morales' Bush and Reagan comments on Real Time with Bill Maher.

The Factor repeats again at 11:00PM and I think 3:00 or 4:00AM Eastern on The Fox News Channel. It is the "pinhead" part of the "Pinheads and Patriots" segment, which airs just a few minutes before the end of the program.

Also, tonight's "Pinheads and Patriots" segment will be posted on Foxnews.com tomorrow under The O'Reilly Factor videos.

If you cannot catch the repeats on TV I will send you a link to the Foxnews.com page tomorrow.

Now that a major news corporation has reported on Morales' conspiracy beliefs I expect no problem with adding his comments to Morales' page with citations to the transcript of Real Time with Bill Maher and report from Foxnews.com, but I will wait until you can review the video and give me confirmation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.253.178 (talk)

Just caught the segment on O'Reilly. I still think it's fairly trivial and a non-issue at this point. It also didn't cover any part of the 9/11 conspiracy comments. But like I said above, I have no more control over the article than anyone else here. I'm against any of it being added, but I'm guessing you probably could find sources to add that he mentioned the YouTube documentary and how they show Bush/Reagan's involvement in introducing crack to the world. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in explaining to the editor[edit]

Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Man[edit]

I think what I and the other user saying the same meant is that we expect a certain type of communication on wikipedia. Yes it might not be always what you'd say to your mum or nan, but still.:) Where you draw the line depends on personality, age etc but most people of an average age would think that if they go on someone's page and it is flashing "metal in the a*s, that's a bit full-on. However...the editor concerned is only 15 or 16- and he was talking about a Metallica album:) There's lots of other stuff on one of the editor's userpages that's, well, a bit young and spirited for most people. But I do share his love of Skins.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia! Nothing is too lame lol, Ryan and I got told off just for sigs that blinked. Also I would perhaps think twice to chatting to someone who says on his page "Metal in your a*s." I see your point though, especially given their age, people could have explained to them politely how it might look to some others, rather than told them off on their talk page, and removed it without talking to them about it first.special, random, Merkinsmum 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

í щįĻĻ ќїΓΓ Ŷοџ[edit]

í щįĻĻ ќїΓΓ Ŷοџ ₳Ṇ₯ €₳Ṭ ΎόŲŖ ฿₳฿ì€Ş — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulture0 (talk • contribs)

í Ћοþ€ Ŷοџ ₯ṆṬ ģ€Ṭ ђ€ДṜṬ฿ÙѓИ ƒΓΔṃ ṃγ ฿₳฿ì€Ş. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RC-0722[edit]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page. I didn't notice it until now. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

city and state of Obama's parents[edit]

Thanks for your comments about the names of Obama's parents' appearing later in the article. Is it appropriate to include the city and state of where Obama's parent's were from. thanks, It is me i think (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert if you want to expand the Early life and career section, but the lead doesn't need to get into that level of detail. I have no idea if there's been discussion about city and state info on the talk page. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the "see also" section. Do you think mentioning where Obama's parent's are from could be perceived as controversial. Obama clearly does think so (at least that's my perception)? thanks very much It is me i think (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued vandalism on Bill Ayers[edit]

New user, Blist14, continues to deleted biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has not other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Can we get the page protected? It is me i think (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I have never seen such crazy vandalism, as with the Bill Ayers article. It is me i think (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page[edit]

Thanks for the revert. It's nice to know fellow wikipedians have my back covered. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Ok then, its settled. I really don't know why it should not be in the Clinton article, its certainly notable. Rk Or To N 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must have a different definition of notable. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

While I don't like to override other users when it comes to warning people, I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked Gipsplug (talk · contribs). There was no way the spam could be considered good faith, given its blatant nature, very public posting, and the fact that the spammer created the account immediately prior to posting.

Just giving you a courtesy heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no complaints from this end. Thanks for the note. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vis á vis Talk:Main Page[edit]

Sorry, this computer isn't quite as fast as I'd like. Apologies. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies back to you. I didn't even think about your name being shown in the edit summary with me calling it nonsense. I didn't think you'd done it intentionally. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, just thought I'd explain, if you looked back wondering. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments[edit]

Onorem - I respect your opinion regarding AJUK's comments, but to his credit, they are on topic if the topic is "should this article be featured in the way that it is?" That's why I restored them. HokieRNB (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replaced them into the relevant section...because I figured it wasn't worth fighting over. I stand behind my removal. If a discussion is to be had about what should or should not be a featured article, that's a topic for another talk page. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Why not then move the entire section to that page? HokieRNB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

It appears that the Toast article was vandalized, and apparently by myself. I did nothing of the sort, so, through that logic, I must have left my computer open or something else, while browsing Wikipedia. Sorry again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertytastic (talk • contribs)

Not a problem. It's probably a good idea to double check that you've logged out when using public computers. Happy editing. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm no offence...[edit]

but I can verify the information if you want me to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will not eat, clown sleeps (talk • contribs)

If you can verify it with reliable sources, please do. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend told me about it and i checked it myself, it's true. On track three if you play a part backwards (I used my computer) you can hear something about Satan). I have the best evidence because I found it out MYSELF not by some poopy source. --Will not eat, clown sleeps (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's OR, mate. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 58.8.28.118[edit]

Fuck off and mind your own business, homo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.28.118 (talk)

You should really consider finding something more productive to do. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie radke[edit]

I have reverted Ronnieradke back to your version, but I'm going out now so I'll leave you to count whether he gets up to 3RR. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Wheel Drive[edit]

Hi Onorem, you have nominated 3 Wheel Drive for an AfD discussion. I thought you should know this page has already been speedily deleted from Wikipedia and it's author has been warned about re-creating it, see here. I would think this page still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks TheProf - T / C 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right an AfD discussion will take away any doubt. If it gets deleted through AfD and the author re-creates it again, we can then speedy tag it under CSD#G4. Cheers and have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.79.87 (talk)

Thank you for the reminder. Would you like to point me to the article where I edited from something other than a NPOV? --Onorem ♠Dil 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something Else[edit]

Please don't leave such messages on my talk page. Recommending the other Wikis out there that do no limit page lengths as places that they should go to if they disagree is standard procedure. Wikipedia is Wikipedia. It is not a place for indiscriminant facts, nor is it a place to have excessive pages while refusing to cut them down. If you cannot understand that, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you, because you feel so strongly in opposition to the community. This is not a place for Wiki anarchists. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning? You've got to be kidding me. Wikipedia is subject to change. I won't suggest that you don't belong here, but I will suggest that you learn that. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is subject to additions. The core principles will never change. If you can't accept that, then you do not belong; you'd have a serious disregard for policy and procedure, which is contradictory to your own desires. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Policies change. Guidelines change. I'm not even concerned with the specifics of the arguments being presented on this specific article. You are flat out wrong to suggest that editors should leave simply because they don't agree with you. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~And please provide proof of my "serious disregard for policy and procedure" before bringing it up again or I will consider it a personal attack.~~ --Onorem ♠Dil 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Ottava Rima's previous statement was changed after this comment was struck) (Note from Ottava - Changed because Onorem's reaction said that the statement didn't make sense. Rewrote for clarity. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Change does not mean that policies should be disregarded. IAR doesn't allow users to do whatever they want. The community's first priority is to make a good encyclopedia. That includes brevity. If people are unwilling to do what it takes to improve articles and make them good encyclopedic articles, then they are better served by editing on one of the other Wikis out there. Those who want to include in-universe information have their wikis. Those who don't want to have to constantly have references have their wikis. Those who don't want to worry about NPOV have their wikis. This suggestion is in their best interest, because they are unwilling to meet Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a prison. You are not obligated to stay. If you can't accept its policies, then the simplest thing is to move elsewhere. This is especially true when an article is going under FA review, which places an even higher standard on content. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the evening. I'm completely dumbfounded at the moment. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never had to reply to begin with. The original issue put forth by myself was an "either or" recommendation, because the users in question expressed discontent with Wikipedia standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, it's my opinion that you are flat out wrong to suggest your "either or" proposition. Either accept the current standards or leave? There is room for change. It would be a sad day if that were not the case. Feel free to reply, but I won't see it until tomorrow. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change yes, but I don't believe some things will change. But until they do, I will support them. I'm a traditionalist through and through, what can I say? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re ANI notice[edit]

At WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima towards you and others. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Looks like that thread wound up getting enough attention. I don't think any input from me would be useful this morning. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Gerry148[edit]

i hate you dickhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry148 (talk • contribs)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Johnston[edit]

My bad. I only saw the vandalism, wasn't familiar with the article and, well, acted too fast. Someone beat me to restoring it. Really sorry. Maybe I need a break. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, looks like you just recreated it. So I should restore the deleted version, right? Pigman☿ 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, restored now. And it looks like you've already got it back to the good version. Again, my apologies. Thought I was right on top of a recently created attack page. Obviously I acted too fast for the situation. This is not the first time it's happened today. I should relax a little. Pigman☿ 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias...[edit]

...for the reverts and reporting the IP. APK ^{yada yada} 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Hopefully, they can narrow down the range and get rid of the guy for a bit. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CTK page[edit]

Ntability justfication has been added to the talk page. Gamer9678 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of soapboxing[edit]

You removed a comment at Talk:Superdelegate that had nothing to do with improving the article. Your removal was completely appropriate. I mention this only because your ES seemed to indicate that you thought you might have screwed up. I've been editing the article regularly and I don't see any problem with what you did. JamesMLane t c 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of AJ Foster[edit]

Your removal of the page concerning this great scientist is an outrage. My source is an interview with his teenage son, during which I was able to find out about most of the life of his father. I am not at liberty to publish it due to laws concerning data protection concerning minors. If wikipedia have decided to take down this page then it is a disgrace, and complaints will be lodged on behalf of my employers, the Faculty Appropriating Excellent Chemists and Exemplary Scientists (FAECES) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denenrs (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, I didn't remove the page, as much as I would have liked to. Thanks for confirming that you're here simply to post nonsense. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to get a life if all you can do is sit on wikipedia correcting peoples pages. I bet you're American, and your mum still does your washing. Oh and you're favourite pastime is playing world of warcraft. I bet you have the worlds smallest rantallion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denenrs (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your life advice. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is onorem, i'm a complete dildo, i have no life, i like cookies and my only friend is my mum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denenrs (talk • contribs)

That's odd. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues talk to SPUNK (The Semination Program for Unfortunate Non-sexually-active Kinsmen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denenrs (talk • contribs)

I can't imagine why I'd have a need to talk to them. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DePury[edit]

He deleted your welcoming statement but left my comments. Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indications are that he's a troll. His article is gone, and I won't respond to him further unless he forces the issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think he was a new user who felt bullied. I think that he was trying, in good faith, to add an article about something that just doesn't appear to be notable yet. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "Tovarish" (which means "Comrade" and implies we are Communists) is not a good-faith act. He was asked to provide external sources and couldn't or wouldn't do it. If he wants to continue the bogus Star-Spangled Banner analogy, he's welcome to, I reckon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending his comments as being civil, but when the first message left on your talk page is "Cease your spamming or you will be blocked", I can understand reacting out of frustration. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know self-promoting spam when I see it. I wasn't born yesterday. And others jumped on the deletion bandwagon before I knew about it. I posted that link and invited him to defend his article's presence, which he wouldn't do, but instead launched into a diatribe. He's a troll. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was self-promoting spam, but there is a still a nice way to warn people about adding promotional material. He reacted poorly to threats. I don't think that makes him a troll, and it's not worth arguing over in any case. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. I am probably over-sensitive to spammers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also knew too much about wikipedia procedures than a first-day user should. More suspicions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Salute day[edit]

Looks like it was a case of a race condition. Saw your comments but it wasn't showing up as closed even after I reloaded the article. Probably just a DB lag. Sorry for the confusion.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Sorry for my previous post on your talk page. It wasn't at all a helpful way for me to approach the situation. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana "thing"[edit]

Hi, I went ahead and added a bit into the legacy section as agreed with Bermudatriangle. I've tried to make sure it isn't as "spammy" as before and not copyvio like the last bit talking about the Institute appears to have been (see edit summaries). I'm still not 100% convinced it belongs but, want the matter to come to a close. Could you have a look and let me have your opinion. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you've done looks much better., but I'm almost 100% convinced that it doesn't belong. Less than a handful of passing mentions in questionable sources. Tacking her name onto their "institute" doesn't make them notable. I won't war over it, I just don't think it should be there at all. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Strauss and 'Ironman'[edit]

Hi -- any suggestions as to what to do about Ironmanmovie? It's interesting that an editor whose contributions have only been today and to one article knows his way around Wikipedia's admin structure so well. Worth checking to see if he's a sockpuppet? (something I don't know how to do)--Doug Weller (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he seemed to know his way around a bit more than a real new editor would, but going to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU probably isn't necessary anymore...It appears that he's already been blocked. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. --Doug Weller (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anapod[edit]

No, it isn't. But then again neither is the constant revision of the article because some poor sap can't figure out a simple software application.

--Unregistered.coward (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

I was wondering if you could tell me how to change my signature to a different font and color? Any help is appreciated. NASCAR9 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Once you mark your signature as a raw signature, how do you change the font and the color? Can you still use ~~~~? Thank you for all of your help. NASCAR9 (talk)[reply]

new donaghadee/dee[edit]

im testing out a few new things seein if i can spoce the donaghadee page up a little at this rate millise will have a better wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean1608 (talk • contribs)

Article space isn't a good place for testing. User:Dean1608/Sandbox would be a better place to test your edits out. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Adufig2000[edit]

It's me, Adufig2000. I'm really really sorry!!!!!!!!!!!! Please let me stay, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adufig2000 (talk • contribs)

That's up to you. Random nonsense and opinions don't belong in articles. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you betcha!!! I'm really sorry! I apologise from the depths of my soul. I'm sorry...Adufig2000 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? John J. Bulten (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008

Thanks for the notice...although my entire involvement was moving the page because it wasn't capitalized correctly. This adw template is supposed to be subst'd. You may want to check up on that if you've used it elsewhere previously. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wallcroft Farmhouse[edit]

Yeah, I got the edit summary mucked up. I meant "he" is not the primary contributer. Sorry for the confusion! weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sorry again; not having a good day on that article, I see. If you like, you can G7 tag it again. Thanks for your patience. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 17:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit Warring[edit]

Hello,

I have been restoring passages that have been constantly deleted by R. Tabor, who progressed blanking the page on Suzanne Olsson. I tried to take the matter to Talk Page but this was unsuccessful. I reported the matter to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Thanks, Wfgh66 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping my user page against vandalism[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your quick revert to my user page i give you my thanks keep up the good work, and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Thanks for the star. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your revert at Dolphin Cove[edit]

Hi there :-)

your revert is inappropiate IMO since the article was once tagged with speedy. it has been done because this stub has NOT been improved since 12 April 2007 which qualifies the article for speedy. i therefor kindly ask you to revert to the redirect version or the article might get tagged again for speedy :-) . kind regards SomeUsr | Talk Contribs 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the criteria for speedy deletion that indicates that untagged stubs should be deleted. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it either qualifies as "no content" or "no context" IMO. again: this article hasn't been improved since over a year now. SomeUsr | Talk Contribs 15:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3 and explain how this qualifies as either. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DolphinCove.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DolphinCove.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a start[edit]

How do we know that the editor did not put in 50 wrong facts? We AGF but verify. The page will help coordinate who just made a mistake and who is spreading false information. Why do we have ANI? So we can communicate.

Unlike ANI where the person gets blocked if anyone complains, this new board will be more friendly. 99% of people will come out unblocked. We'll find the really bad apples. BVande (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers, but I don't think they're quite accurate. If you see someone adding bad info, leave them a warning and check their other recent contributions. You don't need a noticeboard for that. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You saved Dolphin Cove![edit]

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		After your expansion of that article, the nominator requested its AfD to be closed. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm a deletionist by habit. Go figure. Thanks for the star. I'm hoping to have some time to work on expanding it more this weekend. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! John Scott Award[edit]

Hello Onorem, Thanks for fixing the page I made. I believe we have met before haven't we? Letter 7 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Escape[edit]

Just so you know: I seconded your prod of that article, and since Dannac contested that, I have placed it in AfD. —Latiligence (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chew Chew Baby"[edit]

Many thanks for the quick fix, Onorem. You can find the cartoon on YouTube; search under chewchewbaby. Tony (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:StewieGriffin![edit]

I'm not going to say you're wrong until I check on this...but if that's so, why is it listed under the Twinkle warnings? Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Thanks for flagging me. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The level three was because this is the third offense that I have warned him about it. The first two were when he was altering the discussion during his extensive evaluations for banishment for sockpuppetry. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again[edit]

I love it when people blank my user page in an attempt to somehow show why their article should not be deleted. It makes perfect sense, no? I also love when someone rants about a topic for unknown reasons. (me being a "Yankee" that lives in Cary, North Carolina) I don't even live in Cary and I was born in Nashville. <sigh> Anyway, thanks for reverting vandalism to my pages. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]