User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Re: more Nimbley6?

Aye, looks like it! I take a weekend off and come back to kinds of fun! First of All has been blocked now, I've been through their edits to check and reverted any dodgy ones. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Leon Jackson

Hi there. You put a "Failed verification" tag on a reference for a chart position I found for the song Creative. I removed it because as far as I see, it says exactly what's stated in the article. Please read my further explanation on the talk page of the article. I've got the article watchlisted, please let me know if we're just not seeing the same thing, or what, I'm very confused... Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I wanted to thank you very much for the significant discussion you added to my RfA. You kept it truly a discussion and I was glad to eventually get your support. While the RfA did not pass, I learned more in one week on WP than any other week I've been here. Thank you for your constructive but respectful criticism and I hope to see you around more often on the wiki! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Isaiah Jones, Jr.

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isaiah Jones, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly Talk

Thank you for your help. I will be making edits per your suggestions. :) Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any edit conflict, David. Per some of your suggestions, I did multiple edits rather than 'one pass' since I wanted to show an edit summary for each individual action so Gtscottl could see why I was making those changes. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One question, I noticed a "Citation_Needed" under the paragraph that mentions some of the guests that have been on the show, can I cite the actual audio links from the Ghostly Talk website? Gtscottl 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just be aware that this does nothing for notability since it's a primary source. It's just that assertions like this should not go unchallenged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again David, but I am having some issues getting the redirect to work for the Mothman Festival. I created an entry and anchor on the Mothman but I keep getting error messages on the Ghostly Talk page. Thank You! :)Gtscottl 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed here and here. First off, the anchor tags are only needed if the section-heading is not the same as the anchor, so I removed them. Second, now that the paragraph exists, I created a new "article" that really isn't an article at all, but a redirect. It's called Mothman Festival and it links directly back to the paragraph you wrote. This way, if in another article someone uses the link for Mothman Festival, say, in a list of festivals or what-not, the link will work. However, you should not use that link from within that paragraph of the Mothman article itself, as it will just link back to itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again David, thank you for your help and suggestions!! I have done some editing to the Ghostly Talk page per your suggestions. If you wanna drop by there again and see what I did, feel free to give me some more pointers if needed. Thank you for your help and time. :)Gtscottl 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The True Furqan

I dont have enough sources and enough level of English to write such a complicated and thorough article. Hopefully somebody will start it in the future. Thank you for the advice. I am going back to my native Wikipedia :) --Abuk SABUK (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: possible sockuppet of Nimbley6, past-disruptive IP address 86.144.136.133, or both

Hi!

Sorry - terse answers as I've been away for the weekend and am now catching up!

Cross-wiki investigations? I'm afraid I don't know. I did come across Ificouldlistentoyou as they were the uploader of images to several articles that Nimbley6 was targeting. In each case the images were scans of album covers, so unsuitable for commons, and I dealt with it on commons on a per-image basis. Incidentally, I don't think Ificouldlistentoyou is that new on commons; it's just that their contributions are deleted very quickly as copyvios.

86.144.136.133 doesn't seem related to Nimbley6; the ISP resolves to BT instead of "Opal telecom DSL" - Nimbley6's ISP. 78.144.226.100 and 78.150.249.189 are both Opal Telecom, however.

I've posted on SPI's talk page to see if there's a better way to deal with this sock on a cross-wiki basis.

Finally, ping me when you decide to lauch your RfA: I'd be delighted to support you.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ificouldlistentoyou has been around since January 9. Drop me an email please. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like our friend may have a new account on commons. I've not had enough time to initiate any cross-wiki sock investigating; hopefully this weekend should be free and I'll kick it off. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carmen L. Robinson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carmen L. Robinson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grsz¹¹ 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. She de-userfied this article way too early. It would be ashamed to see the edit history lost because of it though. I'm recommending re-userfication. Please put a note on the AFD page saying if you are okay with this or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

replied

Hi there, Davidwr/Archives! How are you? K50 Dude has something that he wants to tell ya, so stop by his talk page to see a new message he has for you.

---

You can remove this notice at any time by taking down the {{User:K50 Dude/talkback}} template from your talk page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by K50 Dude (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Turner Falls

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Please to be answering this. Kthxbai. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Death watch

Davidwr/Archives is currently on survived death watch.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo)

On May 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Monroe High School (Tehachapi)

Sometime in August, I'm going to put a brand new picture up of the school, because during the summer our maintenance crew are going to paint the school. The new color of the building in that picture will probably look a different color, so I'll get a new picture up of how it looks, when they're done painting it.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Masonic Home Independent School District

Hey there. The first reference link mentions that it was listed as a district in 1992. Also if you go here, you can search the National Register for the listing. If you have any questions, just ask. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: NOINDEX on David S. Rohde

Done. (thanks for the reminder) - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

Hi sorry for not replying sooner to your message. On the title, for me it was more about a smaller more reasonable list having the prime spot rather than being concerned about the title. the "extended line" was just an example of somewhere to move the full list like you used the term "near/distant".

Im not sure what is the best way to split up that article, all i know is its just is not working and will always have problems. The main thing i would like to see is...

• A basic well presented article with a reasonable number listed who are in line to the throne.
  • This could perhaps be the 40 listed on the Royal Family website
  • Or say the top 10 in line with a paragraph on each of them and photos.
  • Or perhaps the 54 so only including the ones in the first section up to the note saying "The preceding are all descended from King George V"

Or something along those lines. Then the future of the full article is not as big a concern to me although i would support it being split into several articles some how (perhaps via the descended sections) If we had just the basic and full then the basic could take the prime spot, but if the full was to split into several articles then perhaps the prime spot becomes a disam so people can choose if they want the basic or a certain part of the line. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Recent death}}

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rifqa Barry Recreated

There will be horrible revenge for this crime against ISLAM!!! 'J'ust kidding. But I see why you would write that I am just the messenger line. I have no horse in this race either. I just want to preserve the integrity of the wikipedia as a neutral source. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Police Department

I was unaware that the murder of our department's officer was non-noteable. I will be sure to inform the other officers of this fact. Thank you for your arbitrary deletion of the article. I was away on leave a couple months so I did not have a chance to repsond until now to your actions, my apologies. Information Should Be Free (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have undone my edit and started a disussion. Please contribute to the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR

There isn't any automatic de-FAing process anytime soon, but there are lots of non-compliant articles, so you will have to use FAR manually if you are worried about the build-up YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that :(. I've thought about doing it one year at a time, starting with a bot that categorizes existing FAs with "FA last reviewed in year" and adding categorization-setting as part of the FA promotion and review process. Then start with the longest-since-last-review ones and work our way forward. Ideally, there wouldn't be anything older than 2-3 years by the time we are done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know about WP:URFA ?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I do now :). I'm sure I would've stumbled across it eventually but thanks for the heads-up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Michelangelo

What did you fix in this edit? Both the before- and -after look the same on my screen, and the wikicode looks confusing with a missing "group1." Unless it makes a real difference, could you revert back to the old version? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at previous edit, you'll see that the background colours in the list field do not alternate as they should. list1, list3 etc. (i.e. odd numbers) have a white background; even numbers have a "whitesmoke" background. Previously the sequence went: white, whitesmoke, white, whitesmoke, white, white, whitesmoke, whitesmoke. Changing list1 and 2 in the sub-template to 2 and 3 made them alternate properly. Best, Ham 10:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. On my monitor you have to look very closely to notice. Could you add an html comment to that effect so your edit doesn't get reverted? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now done. Ham 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD bot

Hi, there is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#possible botting of speedy deletes that MZMcbride thought might overlap with an idea you once had. So I wondered if you might care to comment. ϢereSpielChequers 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented and linked to the old discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I need help

Why do my id keep changing? I 75.200.23.152 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.243.31 (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not logged in, your ID is your Internet Protocol address, which is assigned by your ISP and which may change frequently. Please log in. If you do not have a Wikipedia account, go to the log in page and create one.

Being logged in has several advantages besides being able to track your edits. After a short while editing, you will be able to create new articles and edit semi-protected articles. You will immediately be able to set up your own preferences, allow other signed-in editors to contact you by email, and have your own user page, among other benefits.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the two most recent edits from your Internet Protocol address before your question here were inappropriate and reverted. One of the major advantages of logging in is if your internet provider gives many of its customers the same Internet Protocol address. When this happens, having a log-in is the best and in some cases the only way to tell people apart. You do not want to be blamed for something someone else did. As it looks like you have a troll sharing your Internet Protocol address I highly encourage you to register an account and edit with it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks I was wondering why I kept getting messages when I didn't do anything bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.252.112 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Merging during live AfD

Regarding your comments at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD and WT:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, you are correct that providing proper attribution is an alternative to removing the copied content. My impression from reading WP:Merge and delete and following relevant discussions is that the alternatives are rarely used. As a recent example, WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete settled on the method of moving the stubs to Talk subpages of their merge targets, but I think nothing was actually done. You may be interested in the developing guideline WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your note

It's better to include it, otherwise people won't know what's being discussed, and it was removed from the policy for no reason. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Election

There was some limited discussion here. If it's something that had broader discussion, now's the time to bring it up; if not, now's the time to put it to bed for another year. I don't see consensus for it, but didn't want to set everything up and then have people screaming "Where's the Non-Admin seat? OMGWTFLOL" on 1 December. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let it rest for another year. The only reasons I can see for someone not wanting to be an administrator would also make them a poor choice for arbcom. Typical reasons for not wanting to server include: 1) too busy IRL or building content, 2) service of this type isn't my thing, 3) not worth the flamage, 4) privacy concerns/don't want too much attention, etc. The first three lead me to not support an arbcom candidate, and the 4th, well, if you have privacy concerns and aren't willing to give them up you definitely shouldn't put yourself under a microscope like that.

It's sort of like wanting to be a Bishop without being a Priest first - maybe it can happen in theory, but it's a bad idea.

The duties of arbcom also by necessity require at least one of the tools of being an administrator: Being able to see deleted edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's as good an analysis as I've seen of the issue. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template closure

Hey, might want to close the template for the question you added. I'd do it for you but it then looks like the question is from me :-) Tan | 39 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I spotted that before I read your message. I thought "Hmm, I bet someone left me a reminder." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:SPEEDY and NOINDEX

Posting here to avoid getting too far off-topic. The issue has been raised a number of times (see archives) but NOINDEX doesn't do anything in the main namespace. The developers decided a while back on that one, so I suppose it could be revisited. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message at my talk. I've replied, and also commented further about the subject, at my talk. Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments

On 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) you wrote a response to another editor here. The editor said said he'd gone through a now-blocked/banned editor's recent diffs. Your reply mentioned an article that the blocked editor last edited in September, more than a month and well more than 100 edits before being blocked. It's reasonable to assume the commenting editor's scan of "recent edits" did not go back that far. I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as bitey, but that's how it looks :(. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was also reasonable to assume that Hipocrite had some idea what he was talking about when he mentioned that the editor had worked on "pro-wrestling, Japanese manga and Child sexual abuse," and Timmeh's comment was bitey and probably deceptive. Timmeh's follow-up suggests that he doesn't really care what articles the editor was editing as long as the edits were "fine."[1] Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't meant to come off as bitey. It certainly was not made to deceive anyone either, and I don't see how anyone could interpret it in that way. May I ask what made you see it that way? Timmeh 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sapphawitthayakhom School

I'm able to pop online for a little bit, so...The sole content of the old talk page is "Sapphawitthayakhom School (Thai: โรงเรียนสรรพวิทยาคม, abbreviated as SS) is a public school in Maesot" and an infobox. There was nothing relevant to a talk page, so I don't think restoration will help. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock policy

Question for you, David, in case you miss it. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossing the Line

I was aware when I tagged it that films aren't covered by A7. I was in the process of adding a note explaining that it was non-notable regardless and I couldn't see a more fitting template (I considered G11, but it wasn't advertising that much). Thanks for nominating it for AfD instead. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some articles are simply not eligible for speedy deletion, no matter how much we wish it were otherwise. A7 is there for types of articles that occur with such frequency that they would swamp AFD if there wasn't an expedited way of handling them. By the way, your A7 edit-conflicted with my AFD. How's that for timing, eh? Maybe {{db-reason|a7 should cover this but it doesn't but delete it anyways please}} would work? Probably not but it's a good thought. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, so I don't get a customisation option. Until now, I've never needed it either, though I will try to keep that coding in mind. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was kidding about using db-reason - db-reason is typically used when there's more than one reason. Any admin who saw a db-a7 on a film would either decline it or at least have a different reason in mind that qualified, such as db-g11 blatant advertising. Crossing the Line (2010 film) almost qualified on that criteria especially in light of the creator's username, but I decided AFD would be a more solid case for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Needausernamethathasntbeenused regarding The Leone crime family

This should not be removed, deleted, or redirected because it show the structure of the crime family, nonfictional or not. It is information that had been displayed in the Grand Theft Auto series. It is not nessecary to do anything to this article. It took much time creating the article, and I'd appreciate no one messing around with it, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needausernamethathasntbeenused (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Leone crime family

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Baffle gab1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Christopher_Yao

Hello David. I removed the speedy from this article because I felt it doesn't meet the criteria of db-person. Db-person doesn't require notability, it only requires there not to be a claim of fame or notability. There are a few things on there that I feel disqualifies it, 1) the award, 2) the book, and 3) the controversy. I strongly recommend this go to AfD, but I cannot set that up right now. If you haven't done it by the time I get home, I will. I explained this all on the talk page. Thanks and happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I decided to leave the speedy alone due to the inevitability of a defeat in AFD. It was one of my rare moments of putting practical concerns over procedure, or maybe I was just being lazy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. But I know that WP:NEWT is watching taggers and that WP:WIHSD involved a poll of 100 tags and I'd hate for your reputation to be tarnished by being caught up in one of those. I copied the same message to everyone who was involved in that article, as I am sure it will be deleted as well. Anyway, happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Concerns about Speedy Deleters#People make mistakes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I try to provide some of those second eyes once in awhile but I'm definitely not perfect either and make mistakes too. Infact, an admin recently argued against my removal of a db-spam from an article and we haven't come to a resolution yet but meh.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your db-2 temp

Hi, I just wanted to say that this is a bloody good idea. I'm surprised no one thought of it sooner. I'll not get much chance to use it since I'm a little busy on the project right now, but I'd normally be active in patrolling new pages- where something like this could be very handy. Let me know if it goes to XfD or if you move it into the Template: namespace. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is some discussion, including some good feedback discouraging it, at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template to get 2nd opinion on marginal A7s and other marginal speedies. The general concept has been thought of before, but not in this particular way as a straight parallel to {{prod-2}}.

The main concern I have about this tool is that it will be over-used in obvious cases, or that it will be used as a bully pulpit/pile-on in the non-obvious cases that it was designed for. It's designed to help admins make close calls, but like any deletion tag it has the side-effect of being WP:BITEY. On the whole though I like it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Leone crime family

Thanks for that. I thought the user was adding unsourced material about real people. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Line 2234: GOTO Line 236

I'd like to spend more time working on my computer, but cassette tape is getting so expensive! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

00000000 JMP 0 ;no wonder I can't get anything useful done around here, I'm stuck in and endless loop

;davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Baron Byron and ... commonly known as Lord Byron

The problem with adding "commonly known as Lord Byron" next to just one of the Barons Byron is that each of them was commonly known (and addressed) by that honorific during their incumbency as Baron, between succeeding to the title and dying themselves, as is the present Baron Byron today. The poet's cousin and successor commanded a Royal Navy ship to Hawaii; there is a book about it titled With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825, ISBN 9780554605265; read more about the voyage at HMS Blonde (1819)#Voyage to Hawaii. The poet's great-uncle and predecessor, the "Wicked Lord" or "Devil Byron", is referred to as "Lord Byron" throughout his own article. I think it would be a capital mistake, inducing confusion, to encourage people to lean upon a shared term ("Lord Byron") rather than his distinctive individual name ("George Gordon Byron"), to identify the poet. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an exceptional case, but if you remove it from the body of the article I won't object. I do think it needs to be in the hatnote though, since the purpose of the hatnote is to get people where they want to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Extremist views

I don't want to post this at the RfB talk page because it-- like the other hot-button red-herring issue-- has nothing to do with the candidate's views or actions. (Reminder: He only questioned an out-of-policy block, and pursued the question when the blocker gave no adequate answer.)... But are you aware that a self-admitted Nazi who served jail time for making terrorist threats against certain ethnic/religious organizations recently ran for Trusteeship, and is, as far as I know, still editing? One would surmise from the torch & pitchfork mob's silence on that case that-- using their own logic-- justifiers of the war atrocities committed by the Nazis editing here are just hunky-dory to them... I must say that I am surprised that it was possible for my opinion of the Wikipedia community at large to sink lower, but since so many members of this lynch mob were admins-- supposedly held up to a higher standard around here-- it has... Dekkappai (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is going to get me pilloried someday, but here's where I stand on such editors:

I'm personally okay with people with extremist views editing articles as long as they have the good sense not to use Wikipedia to agenda-push or even give the appearance of agenda-pushing and they do not have a conflict of interest or even an appearance of one, and are trout-slapped/topic-banned for a time when necessary if they don't. Just because you are a Nazi doesn't mean you can't make good contributions to birds or solar systems, but you should probably stay away from Hitler and Jew to avoid the appearance of a WP:COI. When editing outside of the hot-button topic, WP:AGF still applies. If the editor has something of value to add to those pages, he can put it on the talk pages and let a clearly neutral editor add it. As far as running for trusteeship, anyone qualified can run but I would imagine if that came out before or during the election, it would torpedo his chances unless possibly he said up-front he would recuse himself where necessary. Scratch that - because of the nature of the job, we need trustees who rarely need to recuse themselves, and such a person would likely have to do a lot of recusing. If this person is an administrator or functionary on any Wikipedia project, he has an obligation to recuse himself from decisions in which he has strong feelings and which the decision isn't a no-brainer. See User:Davidwr/Administrator neutrality. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, it occurs to me what the obvious solution to this problem is: Ban editors under 18 years of age. This would solve not only the P-word problem, but many, many other problems plaguing Wikipedia. Think we could get "consensus" on that? :-) Dekkappai (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, err, tell me you were kidding, because that's the worst idea I've heard all week. There is no way to prove someone is eighteen and eighteen-year-olds can be among the most moronic immature people I know (as can thirty-six-year-olds and every age). I was eighteen when I came on but I'd given thought to it before. I have always been mature for my age and, frankly, I'd be furious if Wikipedia had kicked me out just because of the actions of a few morons. This is the reason I hate car insurance. I'd be a careful driver or I wouldn't even bother driving. Yet I'd get charged more than any other group on the planet because I'm a "hazard." So, please... tell me you were joking... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah, he's kidding, if you squint you'll see a :-) at the end of his message. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I've just about given up trying to discern sarcasm on the web. A lot of seemingly innocent comments are filled with bigotry and stupidity, a lot of seemingly sarcastic/joking comments were said without a trace of irony. Trust me. With what I've seen under the guise of innocent comments, not even the smiley face could make me certain. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr/Archives. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.  fetchcomms☛ 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And again.  fetchcomms☛ 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

uhh

where/how do I go about deleting that? I'm sorry. I see the deletion policy but I feel like I'm running around in circles around the site :| A8UDI 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Rfd of Wikistalker

I'm okay with the consensus of the Wikistalker redirect. Please close the discussion.  Merlion  444  04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stroker Serpentine

this is an incoherent topic in that the subject Kevin Alderman has gained whatever noteriety he HAS gained under his avatar name. This nom d'voyage is how he is known whereas the name Kevin Alderman is chiefly unknown. compare this article with Anshe Chung. I edited the article once changing the first lines to read similarly to this "Anshe Chung is the main avatar (online personality) of Ailin Graef in the online world Second Life." from Anshe Chung. The reasoning behind this is that Ailin Graef remains chiefly unkonwn like Kevin Alderman. The problem is that Stroker Serpentine in all likelihood wrote the article and wants itto read that way. At present the article is ambiguious. --Martinbane (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The tag should stay until the incoherency is resolved. I don't plan on spending much time on the matter. The best solution might be to find a volunteer or two who has never heard of this person or the dispute surrounding the article to go through all the references and write an unbiased article. This would rule out anyone who has edited it significantly. While I qualify, I have other things on my plate at the moment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Effigy 2 043.png

sure crop the image if u think its best however please note that Linden Research affords wider intellectual property rights to its service users and would not attempt to express any ownership of a photograph. Jumpman Lane is a memeber of what passes for the virtual press in Second Life and as a photo of odjects for new purposes is not owned by the owners of the objects photographed so to are they not owned by the various makes of the objects. again this was not a screen shot but what the makers of the software refer to as a "photo" and give express ownership to the downloaders cf Second Life as a start of ur inquiries into the veracity of my statemnts should u make such inquiries. thanks for your interest and time --Martinbane (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from user page to talk page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of Linden's policies in this matter. They are very liberal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe no longer so grey?

I am hoping you might be able to revisit the Ashes to Ashes (2010 film) article, as its been modified some over the last few hours. Perhaps you might be able to offer input toward its continued improvement? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the tips you gave me! I appreciate it and will definitely keep them in mind. BTW, how do you get those notices that appear above the edit box? Airplaneman ^talk 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are welcome. Read WP:EDITNOTICE for instructions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks! And I got your email... I would've fallen into that category when I signed up, but I'm OK now. I will be extra careful, though. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)