In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).
I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just stopped by to say hi.
I added a few relevant links in various wikis, which were all non-commercial links. You stated I was spamming Wikipedia with links with "many different articles to the exact same unrelated web page." The links were not the same and the content was directly related. Please rectify your mistake and clarify your comment about banning me. I apologize if this is not the correct place to contact you, but I was unsure of how to contact you and thought this was the only method. Thanks.
I did not add a link to each and every Wikipedia article, rather perhaps 4 DIRECTLY RELATED articles with different URLs. I am not advertising 'my work' in Wikipedia. The links are to 3rd party legitimate information. You have a very narrow view on references, as the ones I listed were direct sources. Perhaps you should read the links before you delete them. Furtermore, I believe your myopic totalitarian type response to this situation borders on a poor attitude and practice for a Wikipedia editor. Maybe reporting your informal and rude methods to the Wikipedia higher ups would be a benefit to the community. I wouldn't feel this way if you offered any sort of valid retort to back up the serious and baseless claims you so carelessly throw around.
Perhaps you can educate me on what constitutes a relevant link. I am considering utilizing the dispute protocols created by Wikipedia, such as mediation or contacting an advocate. I would be interested in seeing if a survey agreed with the relevant links to direct sources of information being included under articles regarding the same topic.
You claimed I listed one URL "for each and every Wikipedia article" or 12 articles, which ever is less in your belief. However, I only listed perhaps 4 or 5 -various-articles- for that URL, while listing video links (one underneath an already existing link to that same video's transcript) and other media links like to the Library of Congress and for a rare 1951 political comic book about Stalin (quite pertinent to today consider our economic situation with large deficits and dollar devaulation). I appreciate the assumption that I was the author of these original source documents, as I'd relish my work being carried by the Library of Congress or the Bush Presidential Library.
In any instance, I will carefully consider your comments, I appreciate you pointing out any of my mistakes, and will try to follow the policies more closely. I do realize I added several links in a short period of time, but that was only due to my desire to enrich the content by adding relevant links in what I considered the best references; direct sources. Anyway, I consider this issue resolved. Thanks.
I like your signature. It's something. -- BD2412 thimk 10:59, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
You recently reverted an anon's addition of "Joseph Smith" to an informal list of people considered prophets (in the Religion article). I'm mildly curious why. Perhaps you're concerned that the list will become too long? One-dimensional Tangent 20:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#April 25.
Hi. I answered your question on my talk page: User_talk:Jez#Brigitte_von_Boch_scam_-_Phonebook_of_the_World_part_of_it.3F Thanks, Jez 18:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the other articles are real things or words other people use, so please don't delete them. Can I keep the frankensauce recipe posted on my homepage here? Brjatlick 22:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry, never mind, someone else answered that, but thanks anyway. I keep getting messages left and right here, so by the time I ask the question, it's already answere somewhere else![reply]
I saw you had the word TANSTAAFL in your signature, are you the same TANSTAAFL who used to play mafia on the Grey Labyrinth? Mgm|(talk) 22:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
> Please do not delete comments from talk pages that do not belong to you. - Tεxτurε 15:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Belong to me? I thought everything here was public-domain. And the 'comment' in question wasn't particularly enlightening either, nevermind whether I agree with the individual or not. Anyway, I'll take the advice offered by 金 (Kim) - Ashu8845
Why did your use your rollback button here? I have reverted back. Admins should either explain their rollbacks in talk, or limit use of the rollback button to cases of clear and obvious vandalism. The edit you rolled back was legitimate and your rollback seemed to be due to a content disagreement. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
HI! I am making links in my article for baldy, so I hope I can expand it enough to be kept. I linked the phrase hair cut, but there is no article for it, but there is an article for haircut. I can not find the instructions to make hair cut actually point to haircut. Can you help me? --Brjatlick 17:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WIkify or stub. Someone out there can help. --Freedom2005 22:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just made one about the breakdancers of New York. What are you going to delete that one to? I hope not because the breakdancers are real. just wikify or stubbing and the articles will grow. --Freedom2005 22:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now you went and deleted my good natured comment to you....
How do you have modding privaledges?
I'm only anonymous because I can't log in through the school's firewall
I have recently joined the efforts of User:Plattopus and User:Classicjupiter2 to construct a RFC against User:Daniel C. Boyer for his continued self-promotion, hostility towards other users, vandalism of other's talk page comments through the insertion of his responses in their midst, and general refusal to interact constructively. If you feel that you have any evidence to add, please feel free to add it to the rough draft. Thanks! Postdlf 20:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer for you to comment. Postdlf 07:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the page are actually false positives due to the template structure. I am clearing them with null edits. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say I really enjoy the Von Kármán vortex street image. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got blocked for 24 hours, why because the person who blocked me thought i was causing a disturbence. I was not trying to cause any kind of vandalism or was I trying to hurt wikipedia. Please give me a chance because I look forward to new articles being wikifying thats what i need help with. my grammer is bad i know but please i'm trying to get better. thanks. --Freedom2005 19:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first message I sent you never showed up so when i finished the second the first showed up. sorry. --Freedom2005 19:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I am not quite sure if you know this, but User:Mansari (see [1]) and IP address 216.16.237.110 ([2]) are putting up multiple votes, all of them keep. One user, Rezahmadi, his only edit was to the VFD page (see [3]). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thought you might want to take a look at the article now, and see whether you still feel the same about its vfd...? Grutness...wha? 07:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd comment on my posting of those links. First of all, I didn't mean to link to that specific post, but to the thread in general. The site I linked is a general pop culture site of a somewhat different atmosphere. Just like many TV articles link to different parts of televisionwithoutpity(with which this website is somewhat related) and almost all movie/TV sites link to parts of IMDB, what I wanted to do was link some articles to their relevant threads. I understand why you reversed some of my edits and perhaps I overdid it a bit, but I don't think it was fair for you to also reverse edits on other pages that had nothing to do with those links. My objective was to provide a link to a forum where people could discuss the relevant topic without necessarily being a big fan and providing in some cases providing a discussion forum for some articles where there was no such possibility before.--newsjunkie 23:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amm. Re: you switching me back, right wing nuts have called Sen. Byrd (D-KKK). Please explain why you switched it back (a simple google search would show right wingers do this even in print).
A rename vote is essentially a keep vote as it supports keeping the content. This gives two keep votes to three delete votes, not a consensus. The page thus must be kept. Also I give great weight to a keep vote by User:Radiant! since they are so rare. - SimonP 15:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Cut out the reversions, Texture. I feel that the incidents can validly be said to be terrorist incidents - don't stoop to blanket reversions. 68.32.48.32 19:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was so subtle I missed it twice! Kind regards Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the user PatGallacher constantly vandalises the "Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain" pages to attempt to put his point of view across, all the edits were discussed in talk. As he can not win the argument he has started putting NPOV tags on these pages. I was just removing the victims of PatGallacher from the vandalism in progress page as no vandalism occured
It's gone now. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Texture, please allow me to ask you directly if I need your help on any issue before giving advice on an issue which nobody has done anything at all to stop him from abusing me on here. As for the baiting, the comments I made did not attack him directly nor had any intention to attack him. Its all back and forth and he started it. You wanted to give advice, now you did.Classicjupiter2 00:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention these,
(cur) (last) 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 Bleedy (What happened to the Keith WIgor article?) (cur) (last) 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 Classicjupiter2 (clear) (cur) (last) 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 Bleedy (Keith, where are you?) (cur) (last) 17:06, 14 Apr 2005 Classicjupiter2 (clear) (cur) (last) 15:08, 14 Apr 2005 Bleedy (Surrealism in 2005?) (cur) (last) 22:22, 7 Apr 2005 Classicjupiter2 (clear) (cur) (last) 19:54, 7 Apr 2005 Bleedy (cur) (last) 22:44, 6 Apr 2005 Classicjupiter2 (Fort Cotton!) (cur) (last) 21:55, 6 Apr 2005 Bleedy (What's new, Schmoo?)
This guy has been harrassing me and this artist on here for some time now. Nobody has done NOTHING to stop so, now you know. Thanks for the advice.Classicjupiter2 00:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that you would have let me talk to you first before giving your, "advice". I am not really happy that you decided to give your advice before plattopus and postdlf responded. I asked them, remember.Classicjupiter2 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might be wrong. Please get back to me.Classicjupiter2 01:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Texture: Don't distort my claims and then claim (if it is in other than bad faith it is difficult to imagine how) "I hope this helps you in evaluating his claim". My claims were that more than one issue was being dealt with on the RfC, which your "and" clearly shows. My other claim is that there never was an Allison Boyer article on Wikipedia and the facts bear this out. Are you arguing that factual claims in debate shouldn't be true? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever asking you to revert my talk page. Can you explain the following revert that you made on my talk page, please? (cur) (last) 22:17, 19 May 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by Bleedy to last version by Classicjupiter2) Classicjupiter2 03:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Classicjupiter2 03:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me about the article that I posted (view your comments here). I welcome any feedback on my contributions to Wikipedia in hopes of making it the best it can be. I will move the content that I originally posted as an article to my (newly discovered) User Page.
Hi Texture, I've voiced my opinion there. Was there something else you wanted me to do? Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got a talk message saying I claimed to revert vandalism while vandalising. I'm not quite sure which you're talking about, but I assure you when I say I reverted something, I did revert it. If the page I reverted to was also vandalised, but to a lesser degree, I can promise it wasn't on purpose. You can check my actual user history as well and see I don't vandalise... I'm Thray, I just didn't log in for that edit (nor for this one since it was posted on my IP's talk page).
Anyway, to end this rant, I just want it clear I didn't vandalise anything and don't plan to in the future. What page did you think I vandalised, do you recall?
Obviously I'd like to make those improvements to the Paul Bernardo article but my time is limited. The Homolka piece is not even close to done (for example, it omits the fact that Bernardo lived under a pseudonym and this pseudonym became Homolka's married surname -- among other major errors and omissions)...
Perhaps I'll have some time, but no guarantees. - Rhombus 26 September 2025
Thank you for your helpful note. I will post a protest on the user's talk page — however, as the edits were blatantly vandalistic (replacing all text with a single line of profane insult) the user falls under the 'shoot-on-sight' policy. Hopefully someone will do so in short order, as this user continues to cause problems. Wally 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope you find my comments responsive to your expressed concern.
--Mike
Texture, I have in fact been asked in the past to write about Godwin's Law. I have even been cited as an authority on the subject. If you imagine that my reputational equity hinges on Godwin's Law, however, then I want to suggest, gently, that you are not familiar with my work.
The position you take here is at odds with the facts. If the issue were one of challenging anyone else's claims to Godwin's Law, then surely I would object to the inclusion of Richard Sexton's claim. I don't, however. Richard's claim is documentable. The Rich Rosen claim is undocumented.
By the way, I note that I could just as easily have edited the entry anonymously, thus depriving you of your ad hominem attacks on me. I violated my longstanding practice and began to identify myself on Wikipedia partly to track my contributions and partly to be available as a source for the entries, including the Godwin's Law entry, that relate to my work.
Remember, despite your prejudices, that the mere fact that I object to a change in the Wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law doesn't mean that the change is therefore more likely to be true. The world is not quite so postmodern as all that.
Note my blog entries concerning Wikipedia here: <http://www.godwinslaw.org/weblog/archive/2005/01>. Note also that there's an entry about Godwin's Law appearing on Google's 20-year timeline.
Texture,
Since you yourself were involved in reversing two edits of User:Napoleon12 (and his sockpuppets) who has been ruthlessly reverting any and all changes on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to his POV version, I urge you, as an administrator to block him.
You are listed as an Administrator on Wikipedia:List of administrators and so I urge you to take action against this individual and his various sockpuppets (129.100.100.92, 129.100.224.146, 129.100.224.148, 129.100.100.98 and 129.100.100.102). They all eminate from London, Ontario. I do not know where else to turn for assistance. There is a group concensus against his POV edits on the article.
This individual has been reported to the WP:AN/3RR page and vandalism in progress page, but to no avail. I was told that his edits do not qualify as "vandalism" on wikipedia. However, he has made over 15 reverts in a period of less than 24 hours. I think that this is more a case of vandalism than someone who will clearly not listen to reason. I have requested the individual, very early in his session of constant reverts, to discuss any issue he has with the material presented in the article in the Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page, which he refuses to do. His main intention is to present a distorted version of the story, and not engage other wikipedians in dialog on the contents of the article.
The individual has also violated wikipedia's image use policy by adding images to the article that are blatantly copied without consent from a military website.
I am tired of this edit war. Myself and others like User:Idleguy and User:Variable have spent considerable time researching and adding information to this article, on which unbiased sources are few and far between to begin with.
I therefore request you to block this user. If you have any suggestions on how we can deal with such individuals in the future, please let us know. Thanks
AreJay 23:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While cleaning out the recreated article Ameriphobia you seem to have erased Talk:Ameriphobia as well, which had been created with some arguments for undeletion. This has made a certain new user very angry. silsor 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
If you can, could you comment on the copyright issue presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles#Copyright?. Dragons flight 05:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I realized after looking at the talk that an outsider might have difficulty following the issue, so I'm going to take a moment to elaborate on the issue, just in case. As you know, since you deleted it ([4], see March 2), a list of Wikipedia:Columbia Encyclopedia article titles was created in March 2004 and shortly thereafter deleted over concerns related to its copyright status. Now it is 2005, and other people have been created a similar list Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics based on articles appearing in the 2004 Encyclopedia Brittanica. My concern on that talk page goes to how can the latter be acceptable if the former was considered a copyright violation. Some editors have mentioned but not referenced unspecified subsequent discussions or opinions that both lists ought to have been okay. Since you were involved in the deletion of the original Columbia list, I was hoping you might be able to comment on that determination and whether the same problem seems likely to apply to the 2004 Brittanica list. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dragons flight 17:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I gotta say that revert I reverted didn't seem like you..... Gzuckier 5 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I might have offended you with regards to the WP:VFU debate on Islamophilia. With the nature of the support provided to undelete the article, I did not look past that fact that your signature is mostly red before I reverted the labeling of the new users vote. With any luck, I will not make the same mistake again. --Allen3 talk 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Texture,
thank you for the kind way to instruct me :-)
I did not want to promote any religion, especially not scientology, which I view really critical. But I got the impression, that the given article about scientology was written by scientologists but in a way as if it would be unbiased. So I changed something, in exaggerating I tried to make the reader aware of the fact, that this probably was written by someone, who's main purpose is to recruit new members. This is no excuse, I know, but I will try not to do it in that way again.
Sorry, if I (newbie) did wikipedia wrong. For me it is also important to see, that there is some kind of watch over wikipedia - and you do a great job!
All the best!
M.W.
This time, Texture I am not guilty. I corrected what I have written before, which you incriminated. Then I put some important infos to the article, they are critical to scientology, of course, but important.
I hope, there is no hacker-attack on my computer, which does some weird stuff.
Yes. Please read the note at the top of the page. - Tεxτurε 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Your_signature, thanks for your compliment btw, it is appreciated :) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that Senator Bob Smith was not on the Disambiguation page Robert Smith, I have now added him. NoSeptember 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Are you an admin? If so, are you running the VfD over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Saklad?
I noticed your recent revert on the KFC article. The Snopes article on having to pay royalties to Kentucky was a spoof, as explained here. See also the Wikipedia Snopes article. --Tom Allen 05:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
FYI: fair cop on the vanity, and no hard feelings, but really, there was no attempt at advertisement of anything (book, site, or other article). Steve Summit 20:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal but both benefit you. Both advertise, or promote, you. - Tεxτurε 21:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, and I didn't personally do as much of this "promotion" as I suspect you might think I did, but it's not worth arguing about; I prolly sound too defensive already. Steve Summit 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There were two devices in the area: one in the station that they attempted to detonate (the above ground/BBC TV comments apply here); one in bushes in Little Wormwood Scrubs (apparently abandonned and discovered at the weekend). Hence five bombs not four. Your rephrase appears to mix up the two (IMHO). I still like my version better but am happy for you to try for a better rephrasing. The rest of the article should help clarify the situation - if it doesn't, please let me know! 195.157.197.108 14:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heyas,
I just posted a couple of links that were removed (non-porn i might add :), what's the linking rule? Love the wikipedia btw, now I know I share a bday with Vin Deisel, woowoo.
-Azerin
You may be interested in the fact that I finally [after maybe 1 year now] took a little time and made the tables on my userpage fit together more nicely. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you replaced some other people's votes on this VfD by the words "invalid vote". Please don't do that, it may sometimes be regarded as vandalism. If you have concerns about the validity of a vote, please append a comment giving your reasons and the person who closes it can make his mind up.
As it happens, I note that both votes appear to be from AOL proxies, so they cannot be regarded as verifiable votes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- We're actually on the same side in the vfd on Intellectual center, but how come you keep marking votes as "invalid vote?" The guidelines for vfd's allow anons to participate. Obviously the author of the article has cast several sock puppet votes, but as the guidelines suggest, I've noted the issues in replies to the votes.--Bcrowell 14:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]