User talk:Calsicol/archive

Dear Sir or Madam

I don't feel that my statements reguarding money donated by Jack Abramoff being ill gotten. Look at the date the Indian scam started and how much money he was making Jack Abramoff

Now look at his donator list

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_result.php?first=jack&last=abramoff&st=

what is wrong with what I posted?

I am British and have no interest in the matter, but you stated an obviously controversial point in pejorative language. The biased tone is blatantly obvious. Your talk page and edit history reveal an inability to make your points in moderate terms and comply with the neutrality policy, and this has been explained to you several times. You need to think very hard about how you contribute. Try to cultivate detachment. Calsicol 00:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clearly stated by wikipedia that assumed positions of authority and a condescending tone to other users is also disallowed. Patronizing statements such as "you nedd to think very hard" are not in accordance with the mandate of detachment you are purporting. We all have likes and dislikes, and sometimes keen interests, and I have noticed you feigning detachemt to advance your interests in a supposedly "non controversial" topics without pejorative language, but with tactics that are very pejorative or the readers intelligence. I am sure your British imperial heritage and your interest in cricket has nothing to do with that, and I am certain we can all learn by participating here for the best interests of wikipedia.

Please read up on the personal attacks policy. I was asked a question and I tried to give a helpful response. You stooped to abuse based on national prejudices, you chose not to sign your comments or to log in. Calsicol 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro La Fenice image

Hi, I'm 2goh, a Japanese wikipedian who recently contributed Teatro La Fenice article to ja.wikipedia. I found out the file ("Interior of La Fenice in 1837. Original at Museo Correr.jpg") you uploaded a while ago could enrich the Japanese article. Would it be possible for you to re-upload it to Commons so that I (and other potential contributors for other language sets) can use them freely? Thank you very much in advance. --2goh 07:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in the Venezia category of Commons. Calsicol 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've attached that image on w: ja: フェニーチェ劇場. Thanks!!--2goh 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Grazon (132.241.245.49)

An RFC has been opened on Grazon/132.241.245.49 for violation NPOV and other issues; you can comment here. --DDerby-(talk) 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles on afd

If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goals Soccer Centres), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfD: Wikipedians by politics

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry?

What reversion? I reverted myself, and I said so. It was because I put in "Geelong" as being a suburb of Melbourne, which was incorrect. If you'll note, I got rid of the "suburb of melbourne" and instead put "melbourne" in there next to the name, for example Richmond, Melbourne, Victoria rather than Richmond, Victoria (a suburb of Melbourne) which I thought was a bit hard on the eyes. Do you disagree with this? I also wrote in the talk page what I was doing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was we were both editing at the same time. Calsicol 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're talking about. It was when you added in the "suburb of melbourne" bit, which was a good note, and I think it clarified what I said in the talk page. I just thought that a further clarification was to make it in the style as I stated. I should have made an edit summary, you are right. I usually do, so I am sorry about that. You'll note that every other time I did. You were referring to this edit [1]. My retrospective edit summary is this: "changed them to (suburb), (city), (state) to make it more readable, also fixed up some specifics with mergers etc for readability". I meant to, and thought that I had. My bad. I hope that you can forgive me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You confused me with what you said about "reversion" since it wasn't a reversion. It was incorporating your changes.

Thanks for accepting mine by the way. I hadn't been involved in the project, and was really butting in. You can feel free to revert all my edits if you like. I just thought that, since some of these clubs have long proud histories, referring to them as "Melbourne" is a bit misleading. People from Footscray would hate to think of their Western Bulldogs being referred to as being from the same place as Richmond. In the early days, before it became national (pre-1987) they used to have feeder areas, and people from Footscray and surrounds played for Footscray (etc). This was part of the reason why certain teams dominated so much. Thus, historically, referring to them as "Melbourne" is not just insulting to the history, but it is also somewhat inaccurate (historically at least). Nowadays of course most of them are based in Melbourne to some extent. It used to be just Melbourne and Richmond that were. But heck I am sure you already know that, so what am I talking about? I was actually born near Hawthorn for what it's worth, and my parents both supported Hawthorn. I was born in Box Hill, in the feeder area. The amount of times I got told that "If you end up being any good at football, you'll play for Hawthorn because that's where you were born" irritated me so much that I ended up going for West Coast Eagles just to spite them :P. Well, Richmond before that. I have a lot of relatives that play AFL football, a couple even who are fairly famous-ish. If I go back to 6th cousins, we have a team of relatives - 20 of them. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in London

Cheers, for that edit; there was some confusion previously between local and national newspapers. This list exists because there are so many newspapers in the london area (too many for the regional/local section of newspapers in the UK). I was looking for a way of explaining the situation, but you have done it admirably. Cheers! Y control 10:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Sprite 34

Thank you for the edit. As a sports man you know that though technically it is only a keel boat, users accessing the page would have been helped with the categories list expanded. Category:Keelboats Category:Sailboat types Category:Yachts|*. As a youngster, I recall travesing many "related articles" in my encyclopedias. You may have curtailed this feature here. --Halcyon 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Willy Wonka[reply]

DO NOT accuse me of bias

In my time here, I have never been biased in my actions, so This edit is both uncalled for and a personal attack. I resent the implication. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd overreaction. You are not in a position to say that you have never been biased - not one can be sure of that. You should apologise to me for shouting on my user page. Calsicol 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of money

Hi. I saw your comments on the AfD page for this article. I agree that you do not have to provide further edits when removing the {{prod}} tag and you did follow the procedure properly when you removed the tag. I added this to my nomination simply to explain why I was going to AfD. I hope you were not offended by this comment and if you were please accept my apology as that was not what I had intended. James084 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf course clutter

I hope you will be back soon because some hard line inclusionists are trying to prevent the deletion of three completely unimportant golf courses I have nominated. Please consider voting on them if you have the time so we can keep clutter out of the golf categories. They were nominated on 16 March and are towards the bottom of the page. Thank you. Osomec 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]