User talk:Ed Wood's Wig

Hi Ed Wood's Wig, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --Hoary 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Turk and Knight's tour

Sorry, but you are mistaken about the uniqueness of a closed Knight's tour. Please check the wikipedia page on the knight's tour. The solution used by the Turk is unique only in that it was the solution used by the Turk. There are many closed tours. 165.189.91.148 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand but i dont know how to fix that. Ed Wood's Wig 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of P. S. I Loathe You

A tag has been placed on P. S. I Loathe You, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Clique. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! While your tenacity is admirable, please don't edit war against a clear consensus on the Template:Clique page. If you continue you will be blocked. Thanks! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite warning, you've continued to edit war... the article is now locked. You have two days to agree with Collectonian on how you'll edit the article. If you edit war after protection, you will be blocked for a week. And if Collectonian starts to edit war again, don't do the same. Just help us resolve this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a clear consensus against your edits on The Clique series page. Please don't go against it. If you'd like to get a third opinion or file a request for comment you're welcome to, but respect the consensus. If you have any questions my talk page is open. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how removing a book that doesn't exist is edit warring. I otherwise haven't touched the article in days. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is edit warring, or at least a definition of it. That's what you were doing with Collectonian. It doesn't matter who's right; just don't edit war. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what edit warring is. Removing vandalism is not edit warring. I had not edited that article or any related article in over 2 days. How is that edit warring? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the last two days; I'm talking about before that. Anyway, you can't classify a content dispute as vandalism. Arguing with me over whether or not this is an edit war isn't the point here; just don't edit war. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're threatening to block me over something that was nearly 3 days old. I wasn't classifying a content dispute as vandalism, you accused me of edit warring for removing false information. It's sad that you fail to understand that. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening to block you, but that's possible if you edit war. Again; what you deem false information seems to be what others say should stay. All I know is that you removed edits without providing any reasoning; again, not debating the definition of edit warring here. Make sense? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, becasue I didn't do as you allege. You're making false accusations following a perfectly viable edit. Make sense? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She shoulda said no pics

When you mark stuff with public domain licenses please us as specific a license as possible. Otherwise the items will just get deleted on Commons. I retagged these images as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Please be more vigilant or files you are trying to save from deletion will just get deleted. -Nard 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of the pd tags anywhere? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Ed Wood's Wig: I take tagging very seriously and I believe you have a requirement to fully air your differences first before you tag an article, not tag, then discuss. Without the discussion there's no criteria to use to consider the removal of the tag. It just sits there forever. Frankly, I think that's wrong, and that's why I removed your tags and opened a discussion about each of the sections you tagged. I invite you to tell all of us what's wrong with them and give us a chance to discuss it. Simply asserting that these things are true is not helpfull.

As an editor you have the ability to improve the article, and I urge you to do so. Rsheptak (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are there to waarn readers. By removing them, you're pretending there's no problem. That's wrong. Fix it. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Speaks

Hi Ed. I noticed your outrage on the Honduras Crisis Article. I made a number of edits to bring it closer to reality. Please take a look and don't let these maniacs silence your voice. I am now going to see what this edit war they whine about above is really about.Da'oud Nkrumah 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Keith Bardwell's party affiliation

Party affiliation is a public record in Louisiana, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily a news story every time a public official switches parties. I serve on the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Election Supervisors and know that he switched, but you are right that a blog is not the type of source Wikipedia seeks. Probably better to leave things as you have them until there's something solider (more solid) to cite. Rammer (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with listing it, just not at that forum which implied more nefarious means with no way of validating it. i know I saw a post from the Louisiana site about it, but I can't find it currently. I'll add the primary source if you do not. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Honduran coup d'état. Rico 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Rico 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding Republican actions in US reaction to Honduran crisis

Hey Ed, sorry to bother you, but I know that since you are interested in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and related articles, I would appreciate your comment at this RfC at the International Reaction page:

Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Which_is_the_better_condensed_version

Thank you! Moogwrench (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Hey Ed, sorry to bug you again, but I thought you might like to opine on this RfC. Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Greene

Hi. I've nominated Alvin Greene, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Alvin Greene

I have nominated Alvin Greene, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Greene. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alvin Greene

On June 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alvin Greene, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Leopold

I tried to get AIV to take action yesterday, but they declined citing the BLPN thread. I suspect someone will need to take it to AN/I... Yworo (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published Criteria

I saw your discussion in the about Rasmussen Reports. Do you consider Media Matters a self-published source? Do you know of WP policies or guidelines that support this? The policies I've seen seem vague on this issue. Thanks. Drrll (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is, but it's a moot point anyway because we can source the relevant information directly to the MSNBC broadcast and avoid using a questionable source. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic interests me. Please consider starting a formal RFC on the talk page. If you need help, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already did, no one cared. I'm trying to keep good faith regarding the contributors there at this point, so that's all I'll say. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it listed? Did you follow the formal RFC procedure? If you didn't, I would be happy to start one. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on all counts. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? Do you want me to start an RFC? I don't see that one was listed in the page history of Talk:Rasmussen Reports. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it isn't labeled as an RFC in the heading as it is supposed to be. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think changing that will help, be my guest, any extra input would be useful Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes, I think it will help, because I couldn't find it. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Have you re-written the RFC query yet? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did when first requested. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit the problem as your first rewrite did not appear to address continued concerns. If you like, I can give you some suggestions. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did. The problems are solely in the types of sources being used. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more flexible in your approach. Several editors have raised concerns that your RFC is not worded correctly. The proper response is to listen to their concerns and modify the RFC. I would recommend rewriting the RFC to discuss the problem without begging the question. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass, then. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means you will step aside and let others improve the article. Collaboration is the basis of this project. It isn't voluntary. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should tell that to the others, then. You want me to change the RfC so it doesn't address the problem in the article, which is the sourcing. I'm not willing to pretend that the issue is something it is not - the problems are solely the use of blogs that do not meet our sourcing criteria to create a situation of undue weight. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your contributions to the RS/N report, the RFC discussion, and your edits to Rasmussen Reports. The thread is User:Ed Wood's Wig. Thank you. --Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good one. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the discussion at ANI. Your opinion is valuable. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you think that. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. And, please, do not change or modify the headings of incident reports filed by other users as you did here.[1] This is not a content dispute, and I have not engaged in any dispute about content with you, as you know. You may have been involved in a content dispute with other users, but not me. This incident report was filed after our recent discussion on your talk page, and your edit warring on the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are engaged in a content dispute. I'm not new here. no need to template me. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have not had any content to dispute nor have we engaged in any content dispute. My entire incident report was made based on my observation of your behavior, which now appears to span multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No,we do now. You've involved yourself, as well as been very dishonest. AGF only goes so far. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Jane Akre appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This battle should NOT continue

Viriditas (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Unless this is meant to be an apology, you're only fanning the flames. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the symbolism was missed...sigh. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: disruptive editing, obstructionism and refusal to discuss collaboratively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

After reviewing your contributions to the articles and talk pages of Rasmussen_Reports and Jane Akre I have come to the conclusion that your conduct is needlessly disruptive and counterproductive to improving these Wikipedia articles. Please make an effort to discuss content disputes concisely, politely, and co-operatively with other editors, rather than refusing to provide arguments or sources. In particular, when reverted by multiple other editors, do not revert again; instead discuss and seek consensus on the matter, following our dispute resolution guidelines as necessary. Finally, please ensure that any material you add to a Wikipedia article is supported by a reliable source, and take care to avoid the more subtle forms of original research such as synthesis. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty punitive given that I haven't edited in article space in well over 24 hours. Good job. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ed Wood's Wig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Purely punitive, have not actively edited article space in more than 24 hours, hadn't even been on all day, have not done any actual immediate reverts in over a week.

Decline reason:

Having read your behaviour in the ANI report, and look at the article history that was the subject of that ANI, I concur with the blocking admin that your disruption needed to be blocked so that you might take a bit of time to better read and understand core Wikipedia policies. Nothing punitive here: if you return to the same type of activity, the resulting block will be much longer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ed Wood's Wig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Clearly, no one has reviewed the situation. Since when do people block based on edits that are two days old?

Decline reason:

As long as you make edit summaries like this while you're blocked, I'm not unblocking. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Whoever reviews this should note that I broguht the situation to talk, I brought the situation to two forms of dispute resolution, and I did not continue warring while things were under debate. This is purely based off of a complete and total disregard for what went down, and I certainly should not be punitively blocked from removing myself from a situation that nothing was being accomplished as I did yesterday. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Leopold (2)

While researching for a user conduct RfC I ~~discovered~~ was reminded that you'd been involved in this situation at one point. I'm creating a draft RfC here and wonder if you'd be willing to contribute? Yworo (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]