User talk:Ageekgal/Archive2

This is Archive 02 (Dates 10/29/07 thru 01/30/08). Go to Archives Index

Out of curiosity

Why do you keep removing the fact that the principal of Northview highschool got a DUI. I go to that school and know for a fat that he did get a DUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer1cell (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you keep adding unsourced information to Northview High School (Grand Rapids, Michigan) about the school's principal. Find a reputable source (indeed, any source at all save your personal "knowledge") for the "fact" and you can add it without fear of it being reverted. Everything on Wikipedia must be sourced, particularly when something is potentially harmful to a living person's reputation, you MUST source it. - Ageekgal 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

you know what, i know he got one and so does my school and so does he, and i dont wanna pay $10 to the state of michigan to search criminal records just to prove it to you. and by the way in not anonymous. unsigned comment added by Slayer1cell (talk • contribs) 2:30, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains, you cannot prove it. So it does not belong in the encyclopedia. This is not MySpace. - Ageekgal (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick on the vandalism trigger?

What's the deal with this, in particular the edit summary? I doubt you'd say that striking out text is typical vandalism, so isn't a reflection of WP:AGF in order before labelling a user on his first edit a vandal? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It sure looked like vandalism to me (creatively employed, or not), though I do regret the edit summary comments. One vandal warning, of the appropriate level, I don't think harmed anything. - Ageekgal 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no objection to the warning on the user's talk page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in

Noticed you have done a great job of developing your user pages! Cheers, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I really like having a user page that's usable (I rely on those cheat sheet links to the templates and whatnot) and not the non-descript default. Now if I could just stop ruffling so many feathers. On second thought, I must be doing something right, I guess. - Ageekgal 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sean Tucker Team Oracle.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sean Tucker Team Oracle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ageekgal 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I listed it, and am fine with it, as per note. Musta been a bot visit to the talk page to inform me. ;) -Ageekgal 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

you suck

haha you missed one of my vandalizims bet ya cant find it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.52.251 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a wikiworld--a fellow Wikipedian is sure to revert any of your "vandalizims" (sic]) that I overlook. - Ageekgal 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WBC response to Jokela shootings

The passage mentioning the WBC's press release was neither inflammatory nor unreliable. It was matter-of-fact, and it was easy to verify.

The press release itself may be viewed as inflammatory, but that's the way these people are. They're still news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.42.60 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Unsigned, feel free to revert my removal if you feel, in being BOLD, I've squelched a valid source and valid item to include in the article. I stand by my comments, but you're welcome to see if other's agree with you. I am dubious that they will... - Ageekgal 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism revert

Consider retrieving this revert you made on my edit, which is not vandalism. I've stated my rationale in the talk page and in my edit summaries, and at least some other users have agreed. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 04:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to the discussion. I've chimed in with my comments. I will not revert my removal of the word "foolish". It is out of place in the article, and I've explained why in my talk page comments on the Bindeez page. If you add it back, I'll not revert it again, but I fail to see what it adds nor why you're "campaigning" to get it back into the article. - Ageekgal 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm not campaigning to get it back, and I do not intend to add it back again when a discussion is going on. Here's what happened: I made the edit, an IP user removed it without offering a reason, I put a comment on the talk page but received no reply so I added it back again. Another user removed that, telling me to stop the "edit war"; I offered a discussion but received no reply except for a bad faith suggestion from one user to semi-protect the article to prevent me from editing (which would be futile, as I have over three thousand edits anyway). While in the process, an IP user in support of my edit added in "extremely foolishly" instead; the article was then vandalized and I made an attempt to revert the edits but got to the wrong version; before I could self-revert, the user did it and offered threats to "call in the admins." That's pretty much what happened.

Anyway, after reading your comment I'm persuaded that the description "foolishly" may have been a bit out of place; however, I still believe that it is of utmost importance that the article makes it clear that these are purely mishaps and not solely the manufacturers' fault as the article, and sadly, many news sources imply. Would the word "mistakenedly" be fine? Thanks! Aran|heru|nar 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd been dealing with the other commentary (re: edit war accusation, gonna-call-admin threat, etc.) Apologies if I've added to the wiki-stress level (especially with my most recent talk comment on that page; I get wordy when I think I'm not being understood the first time 'round.) Anyway, I understand the distinction you'd like to make clear(er) in the article, and without time to examine the article again right now I think your suggestion to use "mistakenly" instead of the (reverted) "foolishly" might go towards your goal. Another suggestion would just be to look up some other products (sorry, can't think of an example off the top of my head) that was recalled due to improper use causing injury, and see how the article was worded to make that clear. I do think it's very important not to lose the fact that the product does contain dangerous chemicals, that it hasn't always (cost saving measure caused the choice of the present, recalled formulation), and that this coupled with kids' accidentally injesting them is the cause for the recall. - Ageekgal 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jokela school shooting

Sir I disagree with you removal of my edit concerning the Jokela High School Shooting. It was not intened as a joke, nor does the Youtube user TheAmazingAtheist deserve praise or positive sanctions. he immediately gloated on his youtube site about how he "knew" it was going to happen and basically did nothing to salvage the situation. You should be ashamed of yourself. User-Jiggerdude

I have no idea what you are referring to or why you think I should be ashamed. I think you have the wrong editor, and you need to check your own attitude before judging the merits or lack of same of others. - Ageekgal (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've dug around and apparently you believe that this edit meets Wikipedia guidelines for presenting a neutral point of view, as well as using reliable sources. Time to brush up on fitting into the community you are attempting to participate in. - Ageekgal (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bindeez

RE: Thank you for your contribution to Bindeez, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. C'mon now, we all ate dirt as kids. Ageekgal 05:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah sorry about the edits, honestly I despise vandalism and non-neutral viewpoints, but this was the first instance where I just couldn't help myself.... I mean GHB isn't a very serious drug, and I found it rather amusing the parents were getting so worked up about it (where the hell were they in the first place?). Any way.... with overpopulation the way it is.... oh nvm. Anyway, thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.238.34 (talk) (note, actual new username bwanders) 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment about Problem

Hi Ageekgal, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! -TabooTikiGod 06:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with an admin. While I appreciate the invite to weigh in on the discussion, from what I can see you really do need/want an admin to weigh in, and not just another random Wikipedian (that would be me.) If I'm in error, let me know, and I'll share my comments. - Ageekgal 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that you are not an administrator, I would just appreciate another outsiders view on the this matter. If you do not wish to comment, then that's okay too. Thanks for your time. -TabooTikiGod 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My War: Killing Time in Iraq

The article, such as it is, is my work - aside from the quote, which snuck in after I last looked. What concerns do you have without the quote? --Kizor (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check the edit history on the article. The quote was the tipping point. The rest is fine by me. I should probably have tagged just the quotation section vs. the entire article, but as it's a stub anyway... - Ageekgal (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I did add one comment to the article's talk page. I think the language in that second paragraph also tipped me into it reading like an ad. For one, I don't think his site was online for as short a time (as a milblog) as the current entry asserts. And even if it was, it seems a little excessive to use the wording "few scant weeks..." It was either a few weeks or not. - Ageekgal (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The book's glaring at me from my bookshelf and I honestly think it was only a few weeks, but I can check later. As for "scant" - excessive? Perhaps. But it doesn't indicate advertisement as much as the fact that I like language. :P --Kizor (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... Noted. I do the same, so no worries. Thanks for the talk. I need to do better about checking histories before tagging, or certainly at least posting a comment explaining the tagging. - Ageekgal (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Brooks Brown

On 8 November, you added an autobiography tag to the article, which reads This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While I have no knowledge of it one way or another, I would like to inquire into which editor in the history might be Brown, so that what is his spin could be pared out of the article. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TEA Accountability Template

Hello. I notice that you've been adding the TEA Accountability Template to several schools, including Northside Health Careers High School. This school is not rated "Academically Acceptable" but is instead "Exemplary." What code must I replace the "AA" with in order to get the "Exemplary" made bold. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually...I found it. "EX". Thanks. will381796 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

I'm really not sure what it is you are objecting to. Can you please cite, with specificity, what section of Wikipedia's policy you are referring to? Readers of the Kate Mulgrew article may well find her fansite to be a useful link for information and further reading. What exactly are you objecting to? Sorry, I just don't get whatever point it is you are trying to make. MegaMom (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see - thank you! I didn't realize that fansites were not allowed. I wasn't meaning to break any kind of guidelines or anything. I didn't understand why anyone would be deleteing something so useful to readers. Thanks for your assistance. Best wishes for a Happy New Year! MegaMom (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sorry if the warning template sounds a little curt. I didn't write it, and it's meant to be concise/to-the-point, but I realize it can kind of be a mish-mash of stuff if you haven't encountered it before. No harm, no foul. Happy New Year to you, as well! - Ageekgal (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Into the Wild

Would you mind reviewing this edit of Into the Wild? It seems spammy to me, but since I just rolled back a lot of user:Natekarle's work, a second set of eyes would be good. —EncMstr 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I jumped the gun and had to amend my edit summary, but I agree the source shouldn't be linked excessively throughout an article. It does appear to be the Outside Magazine, a valid, reliable source (whose site is now owned by Orbitz? Not sure... - Ageekgal (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after it. Much appreciated. —EncMstr 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was making an appropriate change to the "Defecation" article, specifically moving it to a different title. Obviously, no one goes around saying "I'm going to go defecate"

Yet this was tagged as vandalism? I fail to see the logic behind this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.144.144 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note about this to your talk page. Darkspots (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As have I. My initial post on the IP user's talk page was a standard template. Added a follow-up explanation. - Ageekgal (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Link Removal?

Hi Aggekgal,

I'm confused. I added this link: http://bicycletutor.com/replace-pedals/

To this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_pedal

How much more relevant can you get? The page I linked to has text and video describing how to properly remove and install bicycle pedals. I spent 10 years as a professional bicycle mechanic, and it took me 2 days to produce the video. The information provided is correct and many people find my tutorials very useful. By marking them as spam, you have shown that the Wikipedia DOES NOT want to provide a useful resource, or is simply fascist.

If you want to explain why I was marked as a spammer I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise I will be removing any link TO the Wikipedia from my web projects, and spreading the word about the Wikipedia's power-tripping abuses.

PS: The Wikipedia was meant to be publicly editable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Ramon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to. That said, I only removed your link once and if you choose to re-add it, and others find it bears merit in staying, that's fine by me. I, personally, do not feel it is necessary external link to the Wikipedia on bicycle pedals, per WP:EL, any more than a video on how to change a diaper should be linked to an article on parenthood. - Ageekgal (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. I have read the Wikipedia's guidelines on external links (in the past and now again) and I cannot find any policy that my link violated. This is why I found your actions to be so upsetting. As I am an authority on the topic of bicycles, I am confident that the link was appropriate and relevant. I have put it back and I'm sure the Wikipedia's visitors will appreciate it and find it useful. Alex Ramon (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Spaceflight WikiProject

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Human Spaceflight WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Confession

I stole your navbar ;-) --Veritas (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I stole it from User:Kukini, so imitation remains the sincerest form of flattery. :) Have a wonderful day! :) - Ageekgal (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Your edit here removed the {{Coor at dms}} template which puts the coordinates in the top-right of the page. In essence, you removed the template because of the template. Please go back and re-add this template to pages if you've ever deleted it for the same reason. Cburnett (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. Thanks for the warning. I definitely did not understand how the template functioned, and appreciate the heads-up. - Ageekgal (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a subsequent edit that achieves what I'd intended with my original edit (to remove the coordinates from the external links section of that page, which is not where they belong per many other articles I've seen with coordinates listed), without totally killing the title coordinate treatment (which was not an intended goal of my original edit, in the least.) - Ageekgal (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)