Flag your minor edits as minor, mate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrhadam (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page ;) Ariel♥Gold 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with what i added to the Wandy Rodriguez page. Besides, i only added the last paragraph. The other stuff was put there by someone else. The last paragraph is relevant to his current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobizzle (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wandy Rodriguez NEVER had cited info. Maybe you should hammer the other people who edited it before me. Bobizzle (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
--VS talk 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the reversion you did on my userpage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The information contained in that header is valuable for anybody with questions with regards to copyright information. I find it quite helpful. Users who think it is productive go go around making such edits as tagging pages as "banned" are another issue, but there is nothing I can do to help such users. I don't really think the info is bitey though. Also, looking at the history, I don't think we have to be concerned with many people posting questions there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
...per our discussion. Note, your TPWs are more than welcome to add articles to the list, and/or spread the word. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of using AFD, you could have found consensus to merge at Wikipedia:MRFD to enforce any resulting redirects. Might be something to keep in mind for later. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, speedy closed. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Each album in the series peaked on the Billboard charts. They are notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
Hmm, probably not a SNOW close at the moment. I usually close an AfD early when at least 5 editors (aside from the nominator) unanimously agree. Otherwise, it's usually better to simply let the discussion run its course. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, my concerns have been ignored and the listings removed from AIV with no action. No wonder people leave here all the time, the vandals keep winning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, 65.73.168.122 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person, no matter that it's an IP address, since they have edited nothing but movie articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as it's probably just one person, we can just revert and/or protect once it gets out of control. For example, in the case of GRAWP, we didn't prevent page moves for new accounts until he got real annoying. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it should be RBIs, unless it is a columnar list. See, for example, discussion at [3].
See also the following analysis by KingTurtle: "The pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an s. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006)." RBI and HR will appear without the s in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia-style charts. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences. This is not some outlandish, obtuse style. It is quite mainstream, and not just for RBIs, but for all acronyms. Kingturtle (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)"Ethelh (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Enigmaman. Just to let you know, I've added multiple sources for this article, which might address your concerns at its AfD. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's let the Arbitration Committee decide this, rather than use the lower levels. I won't waste my valuable time dealing with you. If necessary, we can handle this outside Wikipedia by outside arbitration, just like Major League Baseball uses outside arbitration. I am convinced of the rightness of my actions and won't be persuaded otherwise. User:AdirondackMan I know on solid authority, is not coming back to Wikipedia. End of story. 68.236.155.108 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you posted this case on the conflict of interest noticeboard. We are now marking it as resolved as the user seems contrite and has promised not to repeat the behavior. I assume that you have watchlisted the article on the middle school. If there is a repeat of the behavior please repost. If you do not believe that the case should closed please don't hesitate to reopen it immediately. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
See this and its respective history. I'll stick it in my watchlist. Almost sure there could be more like that out there. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate your own efforts with NBA bios. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your own talk page and my final answer, I still believe your edits and actions which only against me, but not against Israeli POV users, were biased, and since your deletion actions came after my insist on Irgun's actions, they contain reprisal character. You may delete these comments on your reputation or keep your choice, and I won't reply any more possibly. Yet, I do stress suffering may only contain in terms of my complaint on your POV actions in relevant authorities, therefore are civil and of course not involving any further threats in real terms, in any way. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(Indent) - You can go to WP:THIRD and/or WP:DISPUTE to get other contributors to join in and attempt a fix for the dispute. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Enigmaman,
I was just wondering why the edits referring to Chandana Paul's references, and postdoctoral affiliation were removed. I am unclear about good faith edits.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.44.43 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Done most of 'em, but there are a couple that should run for a few more days, IMO. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Following up to this discussion, I wanted to inform you that instead of a second DRV (which would be a review of an article that wasn't deleted, which is weird), I've simply listed the article for deletion again. Now, I'm not that familiar with the canvassing rules so if you feel that violates that, please indicate so at this noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you even watch the Triple Crown races over the past thirty years? And she's done much more than that, obviously.
It's funny it took me three years to realize she was missing from those broadcasts, but I wanted to find out what was going on.
Wikipedia was no help. Once I found details, I figured the woman deserved an article. I know it could stand improving, but I believe it's beyond the point of deletion.
I want to know more about Mike Battaglia and Donna Brothers too, so you can probably expect to see those next. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the talk page of the Fravia article? Zorbid (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
what were you referring to with that nasty comment left on my page. a little explanation would be nice.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.86.82 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you revert my speedy tag. Did you check out the page history? The page was created by User:Iggy pop goes the weasel, and if there is a User:Emperordarius, s/he's not the one who created the page. See also the note I left on User_talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel. NorwegianBlue talk 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As idiotic and attacking as the DRV was, I think you should reconsider and replace it, per my comment here. Frankly, I'd rather have it settled for the fourth and final time than letting them keep claiming some moral victory over it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have it, actually, but I tend to prefer using undo. I like being able to explain my actions in an edit summary, unless it's a very straight forward case of vandalism. I appreciate the thought, however. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for. And we're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.
(And we have some really cool awards for the contest).
The Transhumanist 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by removing these cities and calling them towns? State law provides only for cities, not for any other class of municipality. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi:
So- last year- there was a frustrating/heated drama of sorts, where a woman who has an article about them here on Wikipedia decided I was personally responsible for "stalking" her; both on Wikipedia and in person; and that I was responsible for most of the sock-puppet editing/vandalism to the page about her, here. Yes- there was an IRL falling-out between myself and the woman with the article about her- and unfortunately for the entire Wikipedia community, that falling-out crash-landed here (among other places).
Her boyfriend at the time opened an investigative page on me here, accusing me of sockpuppetry. At the same time, the woman had me filed with a restraining order in San Francisco Superior Court (along with Ben Burch, in Illinois). Both the case here on Wikipedia, and in the County of San Francisco, were dropped, for lack of evidence. In both cases *no* forensics were presented, and in the restraining order case, no threats from me to her, no documented ill-will, and no any evidence that I'd been following her were ever presented by her attorney.
Later in 2008 it was confirmed in discussion on the "discuss" page about the woman, that what few edits I did make (plain and brief) were in fact not inaccurate vandalisms (as the boyfriend had claimed)- but true statements around one event on a specific date that both the woman and her boyfriend did not want publicly documented. I could not at the time make citations substantiating that those facts were true, because my affirmation of the statements as fact were from my personal involvement with the situation, and I was not at liberty to publicly "cite" conversations or individuals. This may be moot- but I do think that in hindsight, it clears me from wrongdoing, and as solid documented-data, I did want to point it out. IMHO, the whole thing was also just kind of dumb to have ballooned into such a big deal- she used to be a member of a club, she went from "is a member" to "was a member," and that's all I changed- nothing more, and it was later revealed to have been both a true fact, and to have been true at the time I made the edit.
I don't believe in revisionist history, as I likely don't believe in suppressing First Amendment rights or the restriction of access to documentation of past events. I think Wikipedia's policy of full transparency is awesome- and I don't want it to change. My sole concern, is that my online handle *everywhere,* is ninavizz. I'm queried as "ninavizz" a lot, by prospective clients and employers, as well as current and past colleagues and employers- and my association to the drama around this woman, is continuing to cost my professional reputation.
I'm fine with the article remaining live, but I would like my username in the page header (and ideally throughout the article) to be redacted- or, for the page to be blocked by being scraped by Google. All of the drama- IRL, the restraining order, the Wikipedia stuff- was an incredible emotional burden for me, and I so want it all to live in the past- to not continue to dog me, and to not continue to dog me in areas of my life wholly un-related to my participation on Wikipedia, etc. Within the web of Wikipedia- great, let it be, no problem there- but to those not looking for information on my participation on Wikipedia, I'm tired of this surfacing.
I'm still continuing to suffer financially and through lost career opportunities from this, and simply want to break myself from continuing via. Google and other "outside world" entry paths, to be re-associated with this. Sorry to be redundant.
Please help? I didn't want to mention the two individuals here, because I don't want them to track their usernames mentioned here- which would re-stoke their interests in continuing to harp on me and drag me down. Documentation of the situation can be found by clicking on my username and looking at my userpage- sorry to ask you to do that work.
Thanks in advance, and for having read through all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninavizz (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Enigmaman, if your not to busy could you please give us your two cents at the Horn of Africa talkpage[4], where a member by the name of Liban08 keeps deleting sourced material and is promoting a fringe theory which has been refuted by both me and another wiki-editor --Scoobycentric (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
