User talk:GoldDragon

No End In Sight

I made an accurate chage to "No End in Sight", which you changed. Why? The reasons currently listed are not the "main three" that were talked about in the film. Watch it yourself! 66.0.131.50 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameCube

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Xizer 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Xizer 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit:The GameCube had support for online play, but very few games had support for it. Ever seen the bottom of a GameCube before? Quit reverting the RIGHT edits by User:Xizer.--72.49.19.124 22:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mark major reverts as minor edits. Some people might call that vandalism. Ashibaka (tock) 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit quality has much improved. Thank you! :) Ashibaka tock 04:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello, Brazil4Linux has filed an RFM. You may accept or decline the mediation. For an intoduction to what mediation is, see WP:M. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please do a request for arbitration then or something. This conflict is spilling over to other articles. Jacoplane 21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again

Hi GoldDragon. This is user Doom127 (I've had to login under an IP because Brazil4Linux is monitoring my User Contribs). Just thought you should know he's at it again. Right after Quackshot got banned, he started using anon IPs again to attack the Nintendo Revolution section, repeatedly reverting the "tech specs" section to to old inaccurate versions. I can't revert the article anymore today, think you could lend a hand? -- (Doom127)

Semi-protection needed on Kutaragi

Brazil4Linux has returned, again. I think the only viable option is that Kutaragi become a semiprotected article... Daniel Davis 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Your Suspicions

Your concerns were well founded. The IP address you listed (201.29.9.154) traces right back to Brazil4Linux's veloxzone.com.br ISP. It's him. Daniel Davis 23:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Update

He's going at the NeoWin article again. It looks like he's created another username (Dungeon Seige) and is using it to enforce his page blanking. If it gets beyond the point where a simple revert can take care of it, I'll alert the rest of the individuals who are aware of him, and let them know that B4L is once again violating the terms of his block. Daniel Davis 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Bet you'll never guess who this is. :) I'll get to the reason why I'm hiding behind it in a moment.

I've been watching the edits, writing style and posting history of Dungeon_Siege (including his use of a so-called "anonymous IP", calling everyone vandals, etc, and I'm now thoroughly convinced that he's another sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux. Alkivar's got his page protected (because B4L vandalized it a while back repeatedly), so I'll have to notify him about it via my regular account. Can we get someone who can do user traces to track this latest one back to B4L? I think this might be the cataylst for a Permablock. I'm sure he's tracking the Doom127 contributions, that's why I've created this Sock. I'll put this message on everyone's page so you guys are made aware of it, and you can put your responses here. Doom127sSecretSockPuppet 11:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Just updating you on that certain someone...

I gathered up his "paper trail" and posted it onto the Wiki notice board, and Alkivar is trying to get full verification. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=33621891#Brazil4Linux_again Daniel Davis 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)(Doom127)[reply]

Even With A Permablock

What's gonna keep him from just creating a new username... Daniel Davis 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi Jacoplane, GoldDragon and Doom127 —

I'm sorry that there has been no response until now about the mediation request left at WP:RFM#Ken_Kutaragi. Is there still a desire to hold a mediation? Please remember that both parties involved must agree to the mediation — it's entirely voluntary and everyone must be trying to reach peace. If not all parties want mediation, your better alternatives may be WP:RFC and WP:RFAr (the latter only if previous dispute resolution steps have been followed).

If there is a desire from all parties to be involved in mediation, then one can be set up. Otherwise I can delete the entry.

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How goes the fight?

What has Brazil4Linux been up? Jedi6 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is Brazil4Linux doing anything particully bad right now? Jedi6 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was nice while it lasted

Banned user Brazil4Linux is vandalizing pages. Again. So far he's been spotted at Neowin, enforcing his old old edit. I may need your assistance once again. Daniel Davis 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Welcome back

Nice to see you return to Wikipedia. As for Brazil4Linux, his original account was blocked indefinitely, so he won't be using it. Same with Microsoft fanboy. The last I've seen of him, he used a sock called LaMaroche in the NeoWin article and some "anon" IPs, but nothing really lately. Daniel Davis 04:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sullivan

Regarding your reversion of my edits, I was wondering if you'd be prepared to look at the dialogue concerning this on the talk page and reconsider. I'm planning to create a separate article on the civic election, where the Jim Green-James Green imbroglio can be fully aired. The discussion on the talk page also explains my rationale for excising detail that, imo, adds nothing substantial to Sullivan's buiography. Thanks! Fishhead64 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for a truce

GoldDragon,

This may sound difficult to believe, but I'm actually trying to resolve our current impasse on the David Miller page.

In the last 24 hours, I've made two separate comments about you "earning the trust" of other Wikipedians. You may have interpreted the tone of these remarks as hostile, but this was not my intent (not entirely, at least -- I'll acknowledge I was somewhat frustrated when I wrote the original message). Implicit within these comments is the fact that you have the potential to earn my trust, and it may be less difficult than it seems.

During my time on Wikipedia, I've crossed swords with a number of different contributors. Most of these confrontations have ended with a viable compromise, and I've come to trust and respect a number of former adversaries. When this hasn't happened, it's usually for one of three reasons: (i) the poster wasn't a serious contributor to Wikipedia, (ii) the poster was a vandal, or (iii) the poster was a political extremist. The first two reasons clearly don't apply to you -- and, notwithstanding our apparent ideological differences, neither does the third. So why are we still at this impasse?

You obviously have an interest in Canadian politics, and a willingness to contribute to several different pages on the subject. I've often taken issue with your edits, and I stand by the comments I've made in the past, but I would not deny that you have something to valid contribute in this field. May I request, however, that you please make an effort to present material that is NPOV in nature, and not skewed in one direction or another? I am not reverting your edits simply for the sake of reverting them, but because I believe many of them are inappropriate to the project; I would request that you take this as professional criticism rather than a personal attack.

My period of exclusion from the Miller page will end in a few minutes, and I plan on revising the page again when that happens. I will give my reasons for so doing, and will request that you present your counter-arguments on the discussion page before reverting. This will not be done in a spirit of hostility. I may be able to find a compromise wording on the "police" section this time, actually.

I'd also invite you to continue this discussion on my talk page -- perhaps if we can dialogue for a bit in less formal setting, we can reach some sort of arrangement as to a compromise. CJCurrie 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the articles of Jack Layton and David Miller. Yes, the Layton article is a lot less formal but it is more about the facts. Just facts. Andrew Coyne's editorial was brought in because I felt that his column best described Layton's election strategy. At the same time, the reader does not get a sense of whether his direction is right or wrong.

I have two different responses here:

(i) Concerning the Layton article, I don't consider our differences to be that significant. The NDP campaign was clearly directed more against the Liberals than the Conservatives for most of the election period, but (in my judgement) there was a shift in the last two weeks when the Conservatives were clearly ahead in the polls. Coyne's article may be accurate for most of the campaign, but not (I think) for all of it. I may try to revise this section in the future, bringing in material from other sources.

(ii) As far as style goes, I've been expanding and adding footnotes to several articles, on parties and figures from across the political spectrum. Some of these contain more "critical" observations than others, depending on what information is available. (Feel free to look over the list at User:CJCurrie). I'm not sure if this was your point, but I don't think the arrangements and references are at the heart of our disputes.

By contrast, the David Miller article is rather apologist and supportive. The facts are arranged in such a way so that the reader is driven towards a conclusion, whether it may be a sly dig at his opponents or a vindication of Miller's actions, even though the raw information might be NPOV on their own.

One example is the "police in jail comments" which was described at great length and ends with Miller having an 82% approval rating.

The "82% approval rating" line was added before I became involved in the page, and I'd never really seen it as problematic. You're right, though -- it is inappropriate to the setting. I'll fix this shortly. I don't think the length is problematic, though -- if we're going to mention Fantino's response, we should explain the context in detail.

Likewise, the garbage dispute which despite the Mayor's optimistic outlook has not been resolved and still remains at the mercy of Michigan politicians.

I believe this is already mentioned in the article. More could be added, but I don't think the wording for this section is leading.

In our recent dispute, I feel that while you afford lots of attention is given to the downloading issue and the board of trade criticism, the spending policies are barely discussed and they are reduced to a footnote despite the abundance of material.

I agree that more could be said about spending issues; I've simply taken issue with the specifics of your edits (particularly the Globe and Mail summary, though we don't need to get into that again just know). I'm open to suggestions as to what else should be included.

Raising the formality of the article effectively sets that apologist tone in stone, and that essentially stiffles any potential criticism whatever. Because of these constraints, there is less room to manuever and suddenly those minor words become all important. That is what I feel is causing the impasse.

I don't agree on this point -- if there are problems vis-a-vis "an apologist tone", I think they can be corrected within the current structure.

Another article that has a similar problem is Joe Clark. Although I do admire his policies and his style, I do take issue with the way that his PC leadership comeback has been presented. It runs contrary to many pundits who feel that the effort had mixed results at best, or even a failure.

At the risk of overusing this phrase, I don't think we've crossed swords on this particular point (my understanding is that your edits were mostly about his tenure as PM). I think most observers would say his comeback had mixed results at best, although I wasn't involved in drafting that section of the article. CJCurrie 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XBox

Don't call major edits minor. Minor edits only deal with things like spelling and grammer. Jedi6 -(need help?) 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like the term lost but you are also adding spelling mistakes with your revert. Jedi6 -(need help?) 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the anon users

Did an IP check on the addresses you put out. And they (with the exception of 212.240.81.165) belong to... *drumroll* none other than...

Brazil4Linux.

So, yeah, he's probably got your "recent changes" page on his watchlist and his foffling along and reverting any changes you're doing. Wouldn't be the first time- he did it to me, too. Daniel Davis 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's using anon IPs, it seems that the only way to prevent what he's been doing (outside of requesting a generalized IP block on veloxzone and dialuol) is just carefully watching any edits we make and erasing B4L's vandalism. I'll do what I can on my side with regards to that. Daniel Davis 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axworthy/Vellacott

Can I ask why you've been reverting this point? While it's true that there's still a cloud of suspicion around [name removed], he hasn't been conclusively identified as the caller (unless something's happened in the last week or so). Unless and until he is, we should clarify that the accusation is only an independent suggestion, not verifiable proof.

I've also been doing some research on Hengen: it seems that he was a worker for the Saskatchewan Party in the late 1990s. This means that he would have been an opponent of Axworthy provincially and (possibly) a Vellacott supporter federally after 2000. This doesn't nullify his judgement, but it may make him something other than a disinterested observer. CJCurrie 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clear [name removed] -- it just indicates that the charges are as yet unproven (which is true). I'm worried that the other version comes close to defamation, in the absence of proof. CJCurrie 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name removal

Gold Dragon,

I just noticed something rather significant about the Axworthy/Vellacott situation. In the fallout from the original controversy, not one mainstream media source printed the name of the alleged caller. His name only appears on the affidavit reproduced by the Lifesite.

I don't know about you, but I suspect the Canadian Press knows more about Canadian libel laws than does the Lifesite. If every newspaper in the country refrains from printing the name, I'm led to conclude there must be a valid reason for it.

In light of this, I'm going to request that you not return the suspected caller's name to either article. This goes beyond our usual disagreements, and could (in theory, at least) lead to legal complications for the entire Wikipedia project. CJCurrie 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscoe

I may do that shortly (I'm finishing up something else right now). CJCurrie 03:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon: you are in violation of the 3RR on the Howard Moscoe page. Please revert your last edit to the previous version to return to compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. CJCurrie 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi6

Just thought you might like to know, our good friend Jedi6 is being considered for the adminship. The page can be found here, if you might want to lend your voice in regards to his qualifications.

Cheers! Daniel Davis 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi6 is a good guy- he deserves a fair shot at an adminship without interference from the likes of Brazil4Linux and the associated sockpuppets. So it's really just a matter of monitoring what happens there to make sure that a pile of socks doesn't fall into the machine and clog the workings. ;) Cheers! Daniel Davis 06:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the XBox article, I'm sure he doesn't hold any sort of a grudge about it. People have differences of edits and/or opinions on these things all the time- it only really becomes a problem when people don't let the situation resolve and keep digging at it. Daniel Davis 06:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the XBox article. It was a honest mistake! :-) P.S. You should try and make a user page or at least redirect your userpage to your talk page. That way you aren't a red link. Jedi6 -(need help?) 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

You are welcome. Jedi6 -(need help?) 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton McGuinty

There is an edits war going on with that page that you and CJCurrie need to work out. SFrank85 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1974 General Election

The impression I got from Pierre Trudeau's memoirs was that he got his majority back by attacking Robert Stanfield for advocating wage and price controls. Instead, it turned out that Trudeau accomplished the majority at the expense of David Lewis' NDP. Some said that Lewis may have played his hand too much during Trudeau's minority government, but I have found little info on this. Any thoughts?

I don't really think this is a dichotomy. Trudeau's most memorable activity in the '74 election was ridiculing Stanfield's wage/price control promises, and many believe this approach was key in allowing him to defeat the Tories. There was also a decline in NDP support in British Columbia and Ontario at the same time, mostly to the benefit of the Liberals (part of this decline was due to the unpopularity of Dave Barrett's government in BC, although this isn't often mentioned).

So, it was really a combination of both factors. CJCurrie 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Merry Bunny Day to you!

Never Cry Wolf 10:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo yo

I saw your edits on the Battle of kursk and they are wrong with a reservation. Your numbers cover ONLY the first 10 days of the battle they do not cover the WHOLE battle. The numbers given are for the whole battle not just the first 10 days. This chap David Glantz has written alot about ww2 and written many many books. He has also written some reports for the US army and even one about kursk.

To see that the numbers are only for the first 10 days go here, also buy the book or borrow it, you wont be sorry. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glabat.html

To see the report he made for the US army go here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

(Deng 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article covers the whole battle even the Soviet counter offensive, read the article and you will see. The article in wiki covers the time period of July 4, 1943 – August 23, 1943. Just because Hitler stoped advanceing dosent mean that the battle was over. Also the german casulties were not completly correct because when Hitler first recieved the casualties report he was pleased, thinking that a major tactical victory had been won. When he recieved the susequent requests for replacements he was horrified, as he realised that a disaster has befallen his army. (Deng 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

eMac

I use these from time to time. I work part-time at a radio station, and I often contribute to Wikipedia while previewing music; the machine in the preview room is an eMac. My comment on the '93 page had to do with the fact that, until recently, it wasn't possible to edit long articles from eMacs -- the text kept cutting off at the bottom. They still aren't my first choice, but the situation has improved now.

On other matters: I still disagree with you on the Miller article, and will continue to oppose changes there. I plan on expanding the Moscoe page shortly (though I might be busy in the next week); I'll add criticisms of the fare increases and other matters, and will cover the "taxi" situation in more detail. CJCurrie 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

When you revert articles to restore your preferred wording, take care not to restore spelling and grammatical corrections that have been made by other editors. It is poor form, and diminishes Wikipedia. I have made other changes to the 2006 Liberal ad article, the most important of which I have explained on the talk page. Let's work toward consensus on this instead of perpetuating the revert war. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Hargrove page

I think it needs some further information and reorganization beyond your revert, but I am not entirely sure how to go about it. See Talk:Buzz_Hargrove. Robbie dee 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I got your response on my talk page, thanks. Do you have a link to Buzz Hargrove taking credit for holding the Conservatives to a minority government? I think I remember that too, but I haven't turned up the quote yet using Google. Most of the stuff written on Hargrove and the 2006 election is not mine in any case - I just added the "suspension from NDP" and "CAW leadership race" info. Thanks again for your interest in the article and please feel free to edit away if you think you can make it more balanced.Robbie dee 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for removing another editor's comments from Talk:Howard Moscoe. It is a violation of wikipedia policy to tamper with or remove someone else's commetns on a talk page except in very specific circumstances none of which apply here. Do not do this again. Homey 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

GD,

In an attempt to bring closure to these controversies, I've asked other Canadian editors to look over the Moscoe, Elliott, Longfield, Snobelen and Davis pages. Please do not revert the pages again until some discussion has occurred. In four of the five cases, there's a small consensus against your wording -- in the fifth, your edits (concerning the teaching unions) seem somewhat out of place.

Also, please note that I had nothing to do with the decision to block you. CJCurrie 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage you on the political aspects of this dispute, since CJCurrie's already doing that...but what I'd like to know is, why do you insist on undoing the correct footnoting format in the process? Bearcat 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Howard Moscoe

Your recent edit to Howard Moscoe was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the above, your edit also removed several unrelated changes (including all information about the 1974 election). Please stop doing this. CJCurrie 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem is a direct result of your puzzling decision to just repost the old edits. If you must make the same changes to these articles over and over again, please integrate the material into existing versions. CJCurrie 03:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Snobelen

GD,

You're in violation of the three-revert rule. Please return the page to my last edit. I think that some of your changes are legitimate, but we should wait until tomorrow before resolving the matter. CJCurrie 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to self-revert all of your recent changes to avoid being in violation of the 3RR (note that I don't fully support this policy, and that I tried to change it not long ago). CJCurrie 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think two separate references to unpopular NDP policies is excessive. (One would suffice.) But this is more of a technical matter, and isn't really about content. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Volpe

You're over the three-revert rule again. Please self-revert your last edit. CJCurrie 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please note that I could have had you banned for violating the 3RR, but decided not to do so on principle (since it was probably accidental). I hope you'll show the same restraint if I accidentally make the same mistake at some point in the future. CJCurrie 04:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Star

I've reverted your edits. The only circumstances under which you should remove a {{fact}} tag is once you've supplied a source, or having cleared it in the article's talk page. You've done neither, and further couldn't be bothered to add an edit summary for your change. This is unacceptable. Mind matrix 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something amusing

Notwithstanding our current differences, I thought you might find this interesting:

Looking over the official Hansard, I've discovered that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario held an unusual number of thirty-minute bells during its evening session of June 7, 2004 -- including two consecutive bells between 10:00 and 11:00 pm.[1] No formal explanation was given for this unusual turn of events, although it may not have been entirely coincidental that the final game of the 2004 Stanley Cup Playoffs was taking place at the same time.

I would refer readers in particular to Marilyn Churley's comments after the legislature formally resumed:

While I was reflecting on my earlier comments, I was watching the end of the hockey game. I have to say that we're very sad. Calgary just lost. I don't know, Speaker, if you had an opportunity to leave the chair and see, but they lost. But we do want to congratulate both teams on games well played. It was a pleasure to see all the great hockey being played up until tonight. Again, I just want to congratulate Calgary -- yay, team -- for playing a good game. There you go.

I'm looking forward now to getting into baseball, which for me is more of a spring-summer kind of game anyway. It's kind of weird playing hockey in the middle of summer, with the weather in Florida, what, over 80 degrees or something.

Mr Speaker, I will have an opportunity to have a few more comments about the bill before us in my two-minute summary.

If anyone who follows this discussion page plans to watch tonight's game, if might be worthwhile to turn to the Legislative Assembly channel every twenty minutes or so to see if they'll do something similar this year.

(Originally posted by me to Talk:Legislative Assembly of Ontario a few minutes ago.) CJCurrie 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom127

He seems to have gotten in some kind of argument over signitures. Jedi6 -(need help?) 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Simeone

If you care to revise article Diego Simeone, please also check its talk page. I left a message regarding your edits, to which you did not reply, and ignored when you edited again the article. I'm restoring the previous versions, which implied certain compromise between the old version, and your version. Mariano(t/c) 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure

i 've seen that you've worked hard on all those articles... I hope france will go all the way.. you rooting for france? Abdelkweli 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Moscoe and Norman Gardner

I have removed the NPOV tags from both of these articles. If you intend to readd them, you will list specific and concrete examples of what you consider to be the bias issues. A general "it's biased because I said so" statement is not acceptable; nobody on Wikipedia has a responsibility to be able to read your mind. Consider yourself warned that I may impose a temporary editblock on you if I ever see you add another NPOV tag to any article without discussing your specific concerns in depth. Bearcat 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTC

To be honest, it doesn't look like there was ever actually any discussion. It was listed for peer review at this link, but the only comments there are from User:Radagast, who listed it in the first place. There's no recoverable history at the link provided on the Sheppard line's talk page, so I don't think anything was ever posted at that title — it appears that Talk:Toronto subway and RT is the only place where any discussion actually took place. And there's no recoverable history at the peer review link on that talk page, either, for what it's worth. I can't even begin to guess why people are posting empty templates pointing to pages that never existed. Bearcat 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat's threat

I have responded on my talk page. Regards, Ground Zero | t 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina national football team

That should go (and already is) at the wc 78 article, or perhaps you want to add the 66 final and quarterfinal match details on the england national article too --Jor70 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Raider Crusader

Hi, i was just wondering if you could verfiy the edit you made saying most chapters were restricted to the use of one crusader? Lowris 10:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Moscoe

GD, you and CJCurrie have been at it so long that it's pretty impossible for anyone to sort out who's right here. I have, instead, compared your last two versions and tried to work out what sounds reasonable to me. I'm sorry that I don't have time to sort out the voluminous arguments on the tlak page. I haveposted explanations there, and some questions that, if answered, would be the basis for adding somethings back in. I hope that this helps. I am afraid the two of your will have to work it out between you otherwise.

An alternative would be to freeze the article (e.g., at my imposed compromise), and work out one issue at a time, make the change to which you agree, and then move on to the next issue. Best of luck. Ground Zero | t 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volpe

You're over the 3RR. Please self-revert. CJCurrie 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeSpace and the GTD Orion

Thanks, GoldDragon. I agree with the splitting of Descent: FreeSpace, as much as I do with Descent. Once we have enough information crammed into the relevant articles of FreeSpace, we may make our move. -- A. Exeunt 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look here to see the articles I have amended so far. The problem with editing articles in the FreeSpace universe is that there are so many. I believe, however, that if we edit the articles one by one, we might finish the job eventually. -- A. Exeunt 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I do that too. We should use it as a point of reference, in my opinion, but nothing more. What we want in Wikipedia are articles written in the form of an encyclopedia entry. We do not want too much or too little information. -- A. Exeunt 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try "a strong hull" or something like that. In FreeSpace, hitpoints is the same as hull integrity. When the GTVA Colossus was about to be destroyed by SJ Sathanas, didn't the captain say, "Colossus here! Command, hull failure seems imminent! We've bought the Bastion all the time we could! Let's hope this plan works." -- A. Exeunt 11:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volpe protection.

Yes, a third party is necessary. Just don't ask me though. I only protected the page because that's what one should do during an edit war. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Best

Hi, I reverted your edit to the above: see the edit summary bigpad 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, your point about "Bobby Charlton" is fair enough so I have moved it up a little to fit in better with all his awards in the 1960s. All the best, bigpad 08:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake III Arena maps table

Hi, why did you remove table of tiers and maps I've created for Quake III Arena entry? [2] In my opinion, it looked very much better with that table ^^ Best Regards, Visor 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard_Moscoe

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on 12:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

The case " Mediation between GoldDragon and CJCurrie regarding the page Howard Moscoe" doesn't exist, so it may have been rejected. If so, please remove this template.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

Middle-earth WikiProject

Hello, GoldDragon!

Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

Middle-earth WikiProject discussion
Middle-earth WikiProject things to do - A compilation of all the tasks that are needed to do
Middle-earth Standards (talk)
Middle-earth WikiProject Portal

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! —Mir l e n 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you will find your niche in WP:Me. We are always glad to have members. :) (BTW, make sure to read the Standards for Tolkien articles, if you haven't.) Otherwise, feel free — no, please do — to jump in the talk page and post your opinions or any issues you find. —Mir l e n 17:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Batman Begins

Hello. Your recent edits to the Batman Begins article have been deemed inappropriate and reverted. Please do not assertive that an article or section is cited when it is not. Also, do not make further uncited claims. These kinds of edits can be viewed as damaging to the encyclopedia and thus vandalism. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read both this and your reply on Ace's page. I'd appreciate it if you could find that older section with critiques of the film-mkaing techniques, and create a section on the film's talk page for discussing re-adding it? I'd like to see more of that sort of thing in the film articles if it can be substantiated with citations. ThuranX 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League rivalries: reverting good faith edits

I'm troubled by the fact that you reverted my edits to the NHL rivalries article (NYI/NYR section) without providing an edit comment or anything at all explaining why you did. We've collaborated on articles before, particularly Alexei Yashin, and I don't think there's anything that would indicate bad faith on my part. I feel that my changes to the article were beneficial, in some cases doing little more than cleaning up writing that had become garbled or messy. I hope that your reversion was a mistake, perhaps because you were editing at the same time and there was just some sort of edit conflict. I'm going to put my version back for now. If we have differences of opinion as to what belongs or does not belong in the article, let's discuss them on the talk page. Croctotheface 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that, as I expected, the reversion was unintentional. I know that we have a difference of opinion as far as the business about the NYI/NYR rivalry setting the hockey teams apart from other New York area teams. I'd be OK with you putting it back, though perhaps we could pare it down a bit. Croctotheface 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket revert on Doom 3

Do not, under any circumstances, engage in a blanket revert as you did here. You caused the loss of several months' editing while reinserting unsourced information. I will remind you right now that the prohibitions against unverified informatino and original research are policy. If you have sources for the information, you may add it manually, wholly and fully cited with reliable sources. But do not revert back to your preferred version again. Captainktainer * Talk 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a greenlight to just delete. Please read the policy on verification, particularly "Burden of Evidence". Unsourced material should be deleted, and may be restored if and only if sources are provided. I gave contributors a month to find sources, and none did. If you were gone, I'm sorry that the version I edited was objectionable to you. But Wikipedia's credibility demands that we follow the policies, and the article was not - and still is not - in compliance with those policies. Captainktainer * Talk 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your accusations of POV-pushing. Your pleasantness is truly awe-inspiring. Captainktainer * Talk 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga, Ontario

Please don't remove fact tags from articles. I'm sure you are correct, however, someone has placed the tags for a reason—if you source the statements, then you may remove the tags. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Di Biase

I happen to agree with you about the salary issue, unfortunately, every time you try and take it out, the PoV Army that is VaughanWatch's SockFarm step in. If you're feeling brave, go ahead and take it out - I'll support you. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good faith edits, again

I've tried my best to be cordial regarding our differences on New York Islanders. I don't appreciate the fact that you simply revert to the version you prefer with no regard to anything that I have said. I said several times that we should leave the article alone, or in a tenuous state of compromise, until we can get some more opinions on the content. Wikipedia runs on consensus and discussion. You continually revert my good faith attempts to improve the article to the version you wrote without any consideration for the work or opinions of other editors. I have to strongly encourage you to take a step back before this escalates. Croctotheface 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I did. CJCurrie 01:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

Moscoe. CJCurrie 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Please review this article. Calling CJCurrie's use of an NPOV tag, explained on the Talk:Conservative Party of Canada page, "vandalism" is not on. You must not behave this way if you want to continue as an editor here. Ground Zero | t 02:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, if you're going to be an advocate for CJCurrie you may want to disclose that position somewhere so we know where you're coming from. Alan.ca 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I posted this comment because I believed that calling a long-time editor's use of an NPOV tag "vandalism" constituted a personal attack violated the Wikipedia policy on civility, and not because I have any interest in being an advocate for any editor. Ground Zero | t 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gentrification on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gzkn 03:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Report

Heh, I'd completely forgotten about that. Further expansion certainly couldn't hurt, but I don't see the current state of the article as raising too many POV issues, so I've removed the tag. Bearcat 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie Revert Wars

I noticed you were in a revert war with admin user:CJCurrie. This is my second conflict with him and I have engaged in a cabal case with him. If you have further problems or have an interest in filing complaint about him, please contact me on my talk page. Alan.ca 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Alan.ca is currently involved in a content dispute with me at the Judy Marsales page, and has a history of threatening to file complaints. CJCurrie 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a history of filing complaints. Do you want to have a discussion somewhere or shall we just play ring around the rosie? Alan.ca 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GD, I appreciate that you're trying to stand up for what we believe is the correct edit on the Judy Marsales article, but I think we should just leave it at the agreed neutral form CJCurrie and I settled our truce on. I have a MEDCAB case filed and an AMA Advocate. CJCurrie has agreed to participate in the process and until I see evidence otherwise I think we should just push forward with dispute resolution. Alan.ca 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, It seems that CJCurrie wants to start the discussion on the article's talk page. Please participate in the discussion. Talk:Judy Marsales Let's see if we can stay focussed on the argument of the validity of the sourced information. Alan.ca 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a truce

GoldDragon,

In light of Chabuk's comments, I'm willing to leave the Lapierre page in its current state (pending further discussions on specific points).

Could I please ask that you leave the Volpe page as it is. It should be clear by now that the consensus favours my version; if you have specific complaints, could you please raise them on the talk page rather than engaging in more blanket reverts. I'm getting quite tired of endless revert wars, and I'd like to see a more constructive way of dealing with these disputes. CJCurrie 05:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJ is a squirrely girlie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.38.189 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rosen trivia

I noticed you added some Harry Rosen trivia. Do you have sources for this? I'd like to incorporate this info into the main part of the article, but would need more context. Plus I like to verify things. MRoberts <> 02:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime: Streets of LA

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Wangry 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On his December 11 edit, Can't sleep, clown will eat me brought up the issue of using Wikiquote for long list of quotations. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's Guide to layout,

Usually, the most relevant quotes can be placed directly into the article text in order to illustrate the topic, and only a few quotes should ever be part of such a section. Longer lists of quotes are generally moved to Wikiquote and the Quotations section as a whole is replaced with a wikiquote badge, usually placed at the top of the "External links" section.

However, Can't sleep, clown will eat me did not actually move the quotes to Wikiquote before deleting them, which is why you reverted his edit, correct? I've moved the quotes you saved to Wikiquote and added the link to them under the "Voice cast" section. If you think the link should be somewhere else, go ahead and move it. However, if you disagree with the Manual of Style's guideline, we should bring this up to the Guide to layout's discussion page.

I have assumed good faith on your previous actions of reverting Can't sleep's edit, and I made sure to note the changes made in the edit summary so that everyone knew exactly what happened and the door would be open to discussion if someone disagreed. Obviously, you do. However, both times that you reverted the page, you made no explanation as to why you believe the revert is justified.

Again, I believe you are just wanting to make the article as good as it can be. I would appreciate if you respond in kind. Wangry 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your Bose edits

Your edits to Bose was reverted and/or edited mainly because it had excessive amount of weasel words and/or it was to the tone that it had excessive POV (See comparo here). I attempted to tone down some negative rhetoric you've done on the article only to know that Rivertorch reverted our edits. In the future, if you don't have any noticeable NPOV content to put in, please don't do anything as I have to go through all the trouble of having to tone down some negative rhetoric and/or risk getting reverted by Rivertorch.

Also, I understand that there's been a lot of Bose-bashing before, but again, please be sensitive when editing such articles, and try not to edit the article that it carries an unnecessary anti-Bose bias. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volpe again

In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I'll invite you to review my comments on the talk page. I've made one factual correction to your last edit. CJCurrie 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dion 3RR

GoldDragon,

You're over the 3RR on the Dion page. Please self-revert now. CJCurrie 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

GD, I'd like to make a suggestion on how to make your edits less POV and therefore less contentious. One of the edits you have been trying to make on Stephane Dion has been to describe the Liberals' performance in Quebec in the 2006 election as a "resounding defeat". This can be made NPOV by sticking to the facts, e.g., "the Liberals' share of the popular vote in Quebec declined from almost 34% in 2004 to just over 20% in 2006". This lets the reader decide for her or himself whether the defeat was "resounding" or not. There is a useful discussion at WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation that provides a better explanation. I hope this helps in your editing. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Disputes

Hey man, I see you and your famous opponent are at it still. I have to tell ya, he has ruffled my feathers at times, but at some point you have to draw the line. When you find yourself arguing a point all by yourself, you must ask yourself if maybe you're not representing a consensus viewpoint. Remember, we're here to build consensus and that doesn't always mean it will be the truth. Sounds strange, but believe me when I say there are much more important ways to spend your time than to argue with an editor over his view point. I could really use your help with WP:CITY. Alan.ca 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Volpe

I am trying to move along the three points of dispute at Talk:Joe Volpe. You and CJCurrie have come to a consensus on the Apotex donation, so I have implemented that change. There remain two outstanding issues. I would appreciate your attention to them so that we can resolve them and move on. Regards, Ground Zero | t 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GD. Actually I was going to write about Joe Volpe although not directly related to the Volpe content. I noticed that you tagged a fairly substantial edits as "minor" there. I don't know if that was an accident; I know that some prefs. automatically mark edits as minor. If it was an accident, Help:Minor edit suggests making a "dummy edit" to note the mistake. My prefs. include minor edits but some people don't and with all the back and forth with you and CJCurrie, I'm sure that some people want to scrutinize everything. =) Cheers. --JGGardiner 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller

Goldie, you reverted here an edit that I made and explained on the talk page. You provided no explanation for your reversion on the talk page. This is not an effective way of contributing to Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour leads to edit wars, which are a waste of everyone's time. If you think that that phrase must be there, explain why on the talk page, and if you convince other people of it, your edit will stand. Otherwise, it will just be reverted. Ground Zero | t 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

I take my hat off to your determination. However, I would appreciate it if you would stop making talk page arguments in your edit summaries. I know that you and CJCurrie are having a protracted fight, but you're not doing anything positive by dragging it into the edit summaries. I have made the same remark to CJCurrie. Alan.ca 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of templates

Hello, please do not remove {{fact}} "citation needed" templates from Wikipedia as you did to NVIDIA, unless you have a good reason and state it in your edit summary. For details, refer to the verifiability policy -- intgr 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Baird

GD, acting on your comment about the "Provincial politics" section of this article being biased, I have reviewed the section and made seven suggestions for deletions and revisions to make it more balanced. Your comments would be appreciated. CJCurrie has already provided some comments, and I think that we should be able to get consensus on improving the article. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed three points of contention that remain between you and CJCurrie and made recommendations. Please review. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cities Participation

Any chance I could get your assistance on WP:CITY? Alan.ca 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volpe

[3] CJCurrie 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal of fact tags

Please do not remove {{fact}} "citation needed" templates from Wikipedia as you did to F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat, unless you have a good reason and state it in your edit summary. For details, refer to the verifiability policy. You've been around long enough to know better than this, and have been asked not to do this in other articles. Continued removal of such tags in these or other articles will be treated as vandalism. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be nearly nonexistent:

Edit summary usage for GoldDragon: 3% for major edits and 5% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to County class cruiser

The information you recently added ([4], [5]) to the County class cruiser article does not have citations. Can you provide verification from published, reliable sources on the items that have been tagged {{Verify source}} and {{fact}}? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volpe again

GD,

I've put forward a suggestion for the "placement agency" paragraph. Please let me know if it's acceptable. CJCurrie 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward another compromise. If you agree, we can probably just go ahead and change the text. CJCurrie 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth May

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. GreenJoe 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did say that, but you're not balancing it out with any quotes from Dion or anyone who said anything positive about it. --GreenJoe 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington class battlecruiser

I notice you've re-added the link to http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/lexing_f.htm in this article. I really don't think that meets the criteria as a source for a Wikipedia article since it describes fictional ships of the class that were never actually built and fictional battles in which they fought. The site does not claim to be historically accurate - the home page { http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm } specifically says: "The following series of essays and pictures regard a fictional set of Imperial Japanese naval vessels, and others, developed by my friend Admiral U. Furashita. These units never sailed the seas, except in the Admiral's imagination, as part of his "Victory Through Seapower" World War II wargame. I hope you are as amused by them as I am." I think it's pretty confusing for the article to reference a fictional source.

I added the link back in because of the line drawing that it included. www.warships1.com used to have a photo but they took it down. GoldDragon 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_w74"

I can't accept that it's a good idea to link to a page that's mainly fictional information. It's really confusing reading that page as most of the information sounds plausible but it is totally and utterly untrue. I can't see any sense in which this page meets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. The line-drawing is nice but that page will just confuse more people than it helps. Dave w74 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Eaton Centre

Hi. Don't mean to nitpik your edits, but your revisions to the "Redevelopment" section are still highly problematic, despite your removal of references to the distinctiveness of the spiral ramp (thanks for that, BTW). In no particular order:

1) The work in what used to be called the Dundas Mall, at Dundas and Yonge, was not the first project to proceed. The work on Albert Street was first.

2) The Timothy Eaton Statue was never located in the Dundas Mall, nor was it removed as a result of the redevelopment of this portion of the mall. The statue was located in the old Eaton's store, it was removed due to the Eaton's bankruptcy, and its removal is addressed in the Eaton's article. This statue has nothing to do with the redevelopment of parts of the Eaton Centre.

3) It is not clear why you feel the need to mention two of the tenants that were displaced by the redevelopment, but not any of the others (such as Pantorama, etc.). Moreover, it's not clear why a list of former tenants is noteworthy enough to merit mention (we haven't mentioned displaced tenants due to other renovations in the mall) - tenants come and go in the mall all the time. Just because something is true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Finally, the information in your proposed revision is not accurate. Club Monaco moved out of the Dundas Mall two or three years before the renovations, and that space had been occupied by Stitches or Sirens or something like that for at least a couple of years. And the police did not have a precinct in the mall -- the Toronto Police are not organized into precincts, but rather divisions, and the kiosk in the mall was certainly not a division. I think in its later years it was referred to as a liaison office or something to that effect, but I can't be sure, and frankly, it's unclear to me why it merits mention in the article in any event. But we could certainly talk about that if you feel it is important to mention.

4) I'm not sure that the demolition of the garage was one of the "largest changes". I suspect to most people the changes to the interior of the mall and to the Yonge facade were far more noticeable and/or significant. Ultimately, its all just opinion and inappropriate for the article. Same goes with the characterization as "massive" -- if it was significant somehow in size or height, that should be sourced. Otherwise, it's just a personal opinion. Also, not sure why the spiral ramps are noteworthy enough to mention, as I can think of a number of parking garages from that era with that type of ramp.

5) The new parking garage doesn't have an exit on Yonge Street, just on Bay. Again, location of parking garage exits starts to border on trivial minutia, and one wonders why it would be included in an encyclopedia article.

6) Small nit -- the Ryerson building opened in 2006, not 2005. And that building didn't just replace the garage, as your wording suggests, but replaced the garage and the empty site that occupied the southeast corner of Dundas and Bay.

I am happy to work with you on this revision if you would like. Thanks. Skeezix1000 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is seriously lacking in proper sources. One of my next projects might be to properly reference everything in the article. Let me know if you'd be interested in helping. Skeezix1000 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest version is better, but still full of inaccuracies. Whether they are serious or not is beside the point -- the article must be factually correct. My comments, in no particular order:

1)The statue was at the Dundas entrance of the store, not the mall. You will recall that it sat in the aisle location adjacent to where Sears now sells Adidas products. Its removal had nothing to do with the redevelopment (and, in fact, predated the redevelopment plans by some time), and was solely the result of the Eaton's bankruptcy.

2)The new garage does not have access on Yonge. Its sole access is on Bay Street.

3)H&M did not replace Club Monaco. Club Monaco was long gone by the time of the redevelopment.

There were a few other minor inaccuracies, which don't bear mentioning. Again, I am not trying to nitpik your edits or give you a hard time, but we have to be careful with the facts in the article. Skeezix1000 11:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old Club Monaco store wasn't all that large (it moved into much larger premises when it moved into the old East Side Mario's space), and I have no idea if it was a "sub-anchor" or not. An anchor store, or sub-anchor for that matter, is not just a larger store, but is also a tenant that has a greater drawing power than the other tenants. In the old days it was easy to identify the anchor stores in a mall (i.e. the department stores, and in some malls, the grocery store), but today, unless one is privy to sales figures, it is impossible to know what is an anchor and what isn't -- one can speculate, often correctly, but such speculation can't be included in the article due to WP:OR and WP:V.

In any event, Club Monaco was not relocated because of the redevelopment, nor was it replaced by H&M. Skeezix1000 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The residency of BMO's CFO is not analogous with the Gardner situation. There were a number of criticisms over the years of the fact that a Toronto City Councillor and then chair of the Toronto Police Services Board didn't live in the city whose bylaws he was voting on and police force he was governing. No criticisms of the BMO's CFO's residency that I am aware of and, of course, the Bank of Montreal has not actually been based in Montreal for decades and has not limited its operations to Montreal for centuries whilst the Toronto Police and Toronto City council are not only based in Toronto but are confined to the city's limits. What would be analogous would be, say, a federal politician who didn't live in Canada or an Ontario cabinet minister who doesn't live in the province. Loaf of bread 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battleships in World War II

Thanks for all the contributions you've been making to battleship lately. Since the article is getting very long, I've started a discussion at Talk:Battleship about forking out the World War II material to Battleships in World War II. What do you think? The Land 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard 2

I undid your restoration of original research ("errors" section), restoration of inconsequential minutiae ("trivia" section) and removal of {{plot}} maintenance tag in this article. If you take exception to my edits and/or rationale in the edit summaries, please bring it up on the talk page. At the very least, please use edit summaries yourself. --EEMeltonIV 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Gardner

I've been aware of the dispute at NG for a while, but I was hesitant to join in because of the volume of points of contention. Thanks for the invitation. I have undertaken a point-by-point review, and provided my comments, which are pretty evenly split between your edits and CJCurrie's. I will take another look at the length argument that you make. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller

Hey GFD, why did you remove "The government of Ontario has commited itself to funding two-thirds of the project" from this article? The Ont gov did in fact make this commitment through its MoveOntario2020 announcement. Ground Zero | t 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Royal Family

I have no real issue per se with the Eatons being referred to as Canada's royal family. But if we are going to make the claim, especially in the article lead, we really need a source that shows that the term had some widespread use. In other words, we need to know that more than Rod McQueen used the term. As I stated on the talk page, I will check the McQueen book and see if he attributes the term to anything -- if the book shows that the Eatons were referred to as Canada's royal family, I will send you the page reference for you to use as a source. If you also happen to have the book, let me know if you find anything. If the McQueen book does not contain what we need it to, I will also check some of the more recent Eaton's sources, such as Eatonians or The Story of a Store.

"Merchant princes" isn't as big a deal (although it still needs a source), because that term was widely used to apply to the old stock department store families.

In the end, if it turns out that the term was only something that McQueen came up with, then it really only merits inclusion in the downfall section of the article, something along the lines of "When Eaton's went bankfrupt, one notable commentator likened it to the fall of 'Canada's Royal Family'." In fact, that's something you could add now. But unless we can show that its usage was more widespread, it doesn't belong in the lead. Skeezix1000 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I would remove the phrase altogether, until either royal family or merchant princes can be sourced. Attributing it to the author doesn't make as much sense, because Rod McQueen's opinion doesn't necessarily merit inclusion in the lead paragraph. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with adding a reference to the bankruptcy section, as I suggested above. I'll let you know when I have the chances to flip through the sources (likely this weekend). Skeezix1000 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Lastman factoid

"He played a key role in the negotiations that had the Empress Walk condominium complex developed and two leading schools refurbished, all without using public funds."
Do you have a citation for this statement? Atrian 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Coulon

Looking at his biography [6] , he looks to be notable enough to pass WP:BIO, even if he failed to be elected. 4 major books on major issues like the war in Irak, the Canadian military, etc should be enough to gave him notability. Maybe, that would be a good idea to talk about the elements you were mentionning on the Thomas Mulcair page.--JForget 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Dion, and your violation of the three-revert rule.

You have clearly been making more than 3 reverts per hour on the Stephane Dion article in the past 24 hours. This is in violation of WP:TRR. If you don't stop constantly reverting the article back to your controversial version which no one supports, you will be reported. Thanks. Sima Yi 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

Hi GoldDragon - I assume it was an accident, but this edit you made wiped out about a third of my talk page's content. Just wanted to let you know, in case it was something you needed to keep an eye on in the future.

As for the Joe Volpe dispute, I don't plan on having any further involvement. My opinion was solicited, I provided it, and it doesn't seem to have done any good. I think the two of you are well past the RFC (whether formal or informal) stage, and should be thinking mediation. Best of luck, in any event. Sarcasticidealist 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Mulroney

A tag has been placed on Caroline Mulroney, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Caroline Mulroney is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Caroline Mulroney saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Victoriagirl 06:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldDragon. Concering the deleted Caroline Mulroney article, I wish I could help. It wasn't I who deleted it, but Flyguy649 (an administrator). I'd suggest contacting him. Frankly, I don't know how these things work... but I'm assuming he'd be able to assist in some way. Good luck!Victoriagirl 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked

Hi GoldDragon, if you've been affected by the blocks on User:Tweety21 and socks it must mean you've been autoblocked--I have to admit I don't know much about dealing with these, but if you follow these instructions you should be able to get help. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this works to get myself unblocked from autoblocking.GoldDragon 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 127.0.0.1[reply]

You need to copy the code from the sandbox onto your user talk page (i.e., this page right here), if I'm understanding the instructions right. If you can't get it to work, try the {{helpme}} template instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

GoldDragon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: reason — GoldDragon 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will work. GoldDragon 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon, I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but if you're not at your work computer right now, you won't be affected by the autoblock. (If you are at your work computer, I think you might not be autoblocked right now anyway.) In any case the autoblock should wear off by tomorrow anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will work. GoldDragon 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 142.205.212.203 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweety21

Note that the blocked vandal, Tweety21 (talk · contribs), has continued to use the same IP address as you to continue vandalising the Wikipedia. This is not particularly surprising as I am sure you have a number of co-workers at your place of business. However, I am just warning you so that you understand why this address may have to be blocked again. If you could email me the address of a network administrator there, that would be great. I understand if you do not want to do so, however. --Yamla 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Tweety21 has continued to attack Wikipedia and so we cannot unblock this address at this time. Please send me the contact information for the network administrator there who can take action against this banned vandal. Note that nobody is accusing you of being this vandal. --Yamla 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings about this, as I understand that admins have to do what is necessary. However, I don't want to alert the network administrator, as my organization is Toronto-Dominion Bank (estimated 52,000 employees), who then might put wikipedia on their list of banned sites. GoldDragon 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried a long-term soft-block on the IP? Block account creation and annon editing, but permit editing from existing accounts. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Tweety21 creates accounts from other addresses. I'll try switching to a soft-block. GoldDragon, you should be good to go within five minutes. If so, please remove your unblock request. --Yamla 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Candaian Politics Troll

GD, I just reverted the Canadian Politics Troll's post on your talk page. It's here if you wish to read it. I actually reverted it by mistake (I intended to hit the diff button but hit admin rollback inadvertently) but that user is banned from Wikipedia anyway (not blocked, but banned and so I am leaving it reverted because they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. Cheers, Sarah 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karygiannis

You're over the 3RR. Please self-revert. CJCurrie 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you may wish to review this discussion again. CJCurrie 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Racing League

Please remember to use edit summaries, especially when making major edits as you did to Indy Racing League. It's hard to figure out what was done throughout your two edits and if everything is the same as in the original version. -Drdisque (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry. Thank you. – Pee Jay 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

My apologies if you're already aware of this: you may want to check out WP:LENGTH, which goes into maximum article sizes and how they are measured. Some of the articles you work on regularly are quite long already. I don't think any of them are at the upper limit yet, but it might be worth considering. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

In a recent edit to the page Chinatown, Toronto, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. In Canada, "centred" is the correct spelling. Johnny Au (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dreamcast and Nintendo 64, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Silver Edge (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Response

When a sentence is tagged with a fact tag, a date is added to it stating when it was tagged, so if the text is not sourced after an amount of time (e.g. a month to a few months), the text may be removed; however, when you remove those fact tags, especially the numerous ones in the Nintendo 64 article requiring a source since December 2007, without removing the text or adding a source, it doesn't really improve the article. The newer fact tags can be replaced with an {{Unreferencedsection}}. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status

I am aiming to improve Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have edited the article substantially recently. If you have time, please help out by contributing to the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McAuliffe

What would be the best way to fix the problem of undue weight? Would it be good enough to say that McAuliffe's attacks on Bush have merited why he is worthy of scrutiny in his own business interests? GoldDragon (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be editorializing to draw the connection between McAuliffe's attacks on other politicians, and any discrepancies that may or may not be present in his own conduct. I think this is the kind of thing Vassyana was criticizing as an "improper synthesis". If that critique can be grounded in a fair and reliable source, that's one thing -- but Wikipedia shouldn't be the originator for such a critique; if the only sources are partisan publications, it's more debatable, but at the very least the sources of the critique should be identified.

As for "undue weight," I think what's needed is to show that a mention of the controversies occurs in the context of a broader discussion of McAuliffe and his career. A profile from a major news magazine or newspaper would be helpful in this regard. Does that help? -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on RICARDO (PORTUGUESE GOALKEEPER)

Hi there Dragon, this is VASCO from PORTUGAL,

Why do you insist on reverting my edits to this footballer? Your EURO 2008 inputs are too descriptive, and you added a reference that speaks mainly of CRISTIANO RONALDO, not PORTUGAL TEAM.

Have a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RICARDO PEREIRA - Explanation

Hi there again, Dragon, VASCO again,

Here's an explanation: in this person's article, if you say who scored the goals for GERMANY, i think you would have to say who scored every goal against RICARDO and PORTUGAL, and that would make article too lenghty, but you would know...If you revert it for THE THIRD TIME, i give up, have better things to do with my life...

Nice weekend again, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldDragon/Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

I have replied on my talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

Hello. I noticed that you reinserted material on Warren Kinsella that had been removed by another editor. It has since been removed by someone else, and I ask that you refrain from adding it again without further discussion on the talk page. I have concerns that the material, or at least some of it, may violate at least one component of WP:BLP by over representing criticism. It also appears that the subject of the article has objected to this material (see here). Without further discussion, the current revision should stand, but feel free raise your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000)

I have nominated Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jaysweet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talkpage. GoldDragon (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Warren Kinsella. 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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your edit war on Warren Kinsella. Several editors have disagreed with your changes, so reverting (especially without an edit summary) is not helpful. I suggest you contact the editors via the article's talk page and proceed to a form of dispute resolution. If you continue without discussion, you may be blocked without further warning even though you have not broken the 3 revert rule. Thank you. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page because I'd rather not have to block anybody. Please work things out on the talk page. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Ferguson, Jr.

I've reverted your edits to John Ferguson, Jr. because they don't comply with our policy on biographies of living people.-Wafulz (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious edit

Hi GoldDragon, I noticed this edit. You put back a trivia section, and so far as I can see you reverted to this revision, with a few minor changes. Can you explain why this happened? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of John Magno

An article that you have been involved in editing, John Magno, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Magno. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of your auto edits are being reverted by IP users, so you may want to keep a close eye on that.--Flash176 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Flash176 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Tags

Clearly, you do not believe what I have been saying about fact tags. Would you believe what others have to say? For example:

I've reverted your edits. The only circumstances under which you should remove a {{fact}} tag is once you've supplied a source, or having cleared it in the article's talk page. You've done neither, and further couldn't be bothered to add an edit summary for your change. This is unacceptable. Mind matrix 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove fact tags from articles. I'm sure you are correct, however, someone has placed the tags for a reason—if you source the statements, then you may remove the tags. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please do not remove {{fact}} "citation needed" templates from Wikipedia as you did to NVIDIA, unless you have a good reason and state it in your edit summary. For details, refer to the verifiability policy -- intgr 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove {{fact}} "citation needed" templates from Wikipedia as you did to F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat, unless you have a good reason and state it in your edit summary. For details, refer to the verifiability policy. You've been around long enough to know better than this, and have been asked not to do this in other articles. Continued removal of such tags in these or other articles will be treated as vandalism. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these quotations come from this very page. AverageGuy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the requests for citations from Harold Ballard. They're reasonable requests.-Wafulz (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are removing the cite requests from John Turner. They are all very reasonable to my eyes and suspect many of the statements should be removed. Could you please explain to me why you are removing them. By the way, in the process of the edit war you have also repeatedly reinserted erroneous information on him "pinching" when he patted and that he requested dissolution on the 4th of July, when he did so on the 9th. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to let it go at one page you were warring over, but I see you are doing it on a number of pages, continued removal of fact tags without replacing them with a cite or removing the sentence is in a way vandalism, and the constant reverting of people that re-add them is disruptive editing. If you continue to act in such a manor you will be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Hockey Association

Hello GoldDragon. Please take the dispute to the article's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Death of a Salesman, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. you are more than welcomed to make constructive edits to wp articles, however, you may be sanctioned if you continue to be disruptive. emerson7 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting

I noticed that there is an edit war ongoing here. Could you please explain your position at Talk:2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting#Discussion so I can better understand the problem? Thanks, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. There seems to be more than just the addition/removal of tags going on here though and I wonder what the issue is but am too lazy to analyse closely. :-P
I hope that the other user will respond as well. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. The two of you seem to be in a personal dispute and there may be a case of WP:Hounding going on. I would be a great help if you made your changes to articles clear by using the edit summary consistently and discussed changes and content disputes on talk pages. If it doesn't improve, mediation or RFC may be called for. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and would be hard to argue against (or at least would be a specific point to argue) if you put those reasonings in your edit summaries. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary dispute

A discussion about your continued reverting of some copyediting has been initiated at Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute#Undone copyediting. Your input is requested, thanks. --99.232.5.142 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the comments and edits by the anon, you've also completely failed to engage in the discussion about the unity crisis section - I originally reverted your changes, and opened a discussion about it. Moreover, you've completely reverted those changes, with edit summaries which were either missing, or terribly unhelpful (for example, the phrase "unity crisis" when making changes to that section, utterly failing to describe what the changes were). There is no indication why you made those changes, or how they address any of the concerns I've mentioned. I'm going to revert your changes again, and I expect you to participate in the discussion.

By the way, removing text, supported by a citation, and shifting the citation to another piece of text, or simply leaving it dangling, is unacceptable. I'm referring to the citation attached to In the House of Commons, Conservative MPs referred to Dion as a "traitor" for forming a "separatist coalition", and the removal of the phrase itself. This quite certainly happened, and was recorded by the media. It's also distinctly relevant to the topic. Stop removing it.

Short list of edits:

my restoring first paragraph, with explanation
my original reversion of second paragraph, with an explanation
your reversion, with edit summary "unity crisis"
several others, but I don't have the energy to go through them all right now

As an aside, what was the point of this edit? The original statement said "strategic voting for the three main parties opposing the Conservatives", and you weakened it to "from the Liberals, the Green Party", also implying in the process that the Liberals and Greens were the ones actively promoting this. While the former is evident, you've provided no citations for your version, let alone reliable sources. Mind matrix 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Given your comments regarding this, you may want to re-state your position about the article title at Talk:2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#Survey. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Horowitz

Hi. I partially reverted your edit to Vladimir Horowitz in regard to Rachmaninoff never performing the 3rd Concerto after hearing Horowitz play it. That's a legend that seems to have cropped up over the years, but I've seen no evidence to support it. Rachmaninoff never attained great success with the 3rd Concerto, and when playing a concerto appearance, usually caved to manager's requests that he play the 2nd, which was much more popular. So the infrequency of his performances of the 3rd pre-dates his hearing Horowitz's performance. In fact, Rachmaninoff recorded the concerto (with Eugene Ormandy) in 1939, nine years after playing the piece with Horowitz in the Steinway basement. If you ahve any comments, feel free to drop them on my talk page.THD3 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Canadian Parliamentary dispute

I have noticed that you have begun an edit war with the other users on this page. I have reported your activities here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GoldDragon_reported_by_User:Clausewitz01_.28Result:_.29

Please engage in the discussions with other users when editing pages and explain your reasoning. It is entirely possible that you have valid reasons, however by not engaging in discussion your edits apear to be very biased. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Proper Format References

There is no way to do it automatically (that I know of), and the easiest thing is to just copy an existing reference template and refill it out accordingly. These are the important fields: <ref>{{Cite web|title=|url=|work=|publisher=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref> -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I happened to notice this post and wanted to make certain you were aware of User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar which can be enabled through the gadgets section of your preferences. Very handy. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PFS

Hi, you've been here a long time so I'd imagine you are familiar with WP:RS, but maybe not. Your edit to PFS[7] used sources that are certainly not up to WP standards, and someone reverted you. If you can find similar accounts in a reliable source then they'd be fine. But forums are never suitable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the inappropriate material doesn't help. If you can find better sources then that'd be great. But please don't keep restoring the material with unreliable sources. Will Beback talk 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom127's page

Hi, GoldDragon. It's apparently now Wikipedia's policies to completely erase the page of anyone who gets a block, however unfairly it was presented or however inappropriatly it was placed, and regardless of anyone's particular contributions to the project either. Since you certainly don't deserve the inappropriate drubbing that the cabal gave to this particular user, I would advise just leaving the page as it is. Wikipedia won't get anything positive from that user anymore either. It's a mighty shame, too, but that's what happens with most Wikipedians eventually- they realize that no matter the scope or quality of their additions, eventually biased admins will eventually abuse their power and do what they've done. He's moved on to places that are a little higher quality in their administration. Cheers! 75.165.105.200 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Snickerdo on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Quarte t 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car Classification

Please stop adding examples. Three examples per class is adequate, if not excessive. There is no need for more than 3. If you wish to change one of the existing ones for another, please do so only when the current example is somehow less appropriate. It would be a good idea to make each such change as one edit and give a reason for that particular edit.

Please stop changing from British English to American English. This is against wikipedia policy. Yes, both are acceptable, but articles are to be left in the style of English that they were originally written, and in this case, that means British English. So, please use saloon instead of sedan, estate instead of station wagan, etc.

You seem to have added a fair amount of original research which is not supported.

Finally, some of your so called references do not support all the changes to which they are ascribed. http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2009-premium-midsize-car-buying-guide.htm does not suggest that "Many luxury features and technologies, often options of entry-level luxury cars, are mostly standard in mid-luxury. Powerful six-cylinder engines are the base engine, with V8s as an option, while high-performance variants may have V10s." Nasty (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Lexington class battlecruiser. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska class cruiser

Please do not make major additions to the article without discussing them on the talk page first. The article is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidacy and is considered to be of high-quality. Also, what you attempted to add to the article does not meet the standards of our reliable sourcing guidelines, not to mention that you also removed references to reliable sources in the process. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your FINAL WARNING do not revert again or you will be blocked for edit warring. You have been asked to discuss. Stating your intentions and reverting again is against our policies. Wait for consensus on the page above all else. You have been warned. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source because it does not reveal its sources and/or the authors. It is unreliable and is not acceptable for FA-quality articles, which the one in question is. Do not use it. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to talk to you about those changes on the talk page of Alaska-class cruiser, especially after Harlsbottom gets back to me. Just make sure that whatever you want to add is backed up by a reliable source, alright? Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Pull something like this again and you'll be blocked. You've been around long enough to know WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP; if you don't understand them by now, perhaps you shouldn't be here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to that that my reaction to any continued behaviour of that variety will likely include some sort of article ban under the terms of the special enforcement provisions on the biographies of living persons, which authorize administrators to take actions "including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two important distinctions between this case and Jimbo's. First, the question of editing Wikipedia is much more central to Jimbo's notability, as he is the cofounder of Wikipedia, than it is to Kinsella's. Much more importantly, however, is the second distinction: the information in Jimbo's article is sourced to reliable third party sources, as required by our policy on verifiability. Kinsella's is not, and any mention in his article would be textbook original research. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor

You are attempting to institute a major re-organization of a long-standing page. Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article before trying again to make these changes. Do not make this changes without consensus. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer games that require Pixel Shaders

Do you mind temporarily recreating List of computer games that require Pixel Shaders so I can extract some information ? GoldDragon (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it to User:GoldDragon/List of computer games that require Pixel Shaders; please tag it {{db-userreq}} when done. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Hall Findlay

A blog entry is not an acceptable source for a statement of fact in a Wikipedia article, per reliable sources rules. And furthermore, the entry in question does not mention Gerard Kennedy at all — which means that even if it were an acceptable source for the article in general, it still wouldn't be an acceptable source for a sentence that includes such a loaded smackdown of Kennedy.

And I'd also remind you that the WP:3RR rule does not mean that you're entitled to keep an edit war going for a week at a time so long as you only revert twice on any given day. You can still be edit blocked if you keep gaming the system like that.

It's not appropriate article content, and you need to stop it. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't permanently block IP numbers from editing Wikipedia, because that can impact other people. While there are some types of Internet connection where a person gets their own permanent IP number that never changes, most people are on what are called "dynamic IP" connections, meaning that the IP number is just a temporary address assigned by their ISP for the duration of a single session. As soon as they log off, a different person can be given that same IP number, and the next time the first person logs back on their IP number will be different. So the only thing admins can really do with IP editors is to monitor the situation and step in if it's getting out of hand. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user troll

I suspect that your suspicions are correct. Keep a log of his behaviour and IPs, warn him appropriately, and escalate to WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, and/or WP:SPI as appropriate. Stay strong and true. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content request

Within the hidden tags.... –xeno (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

I snapped at you for the raw URL you added to Torpedo bomber as a reference. Yes, the article is desperately in need of references, but when I saw it I boiled over in frustration at the number of editors who haven't yet made it a habit to use an easy-to-read citation style for URLs. Please try one of the many citation templates at WP:CIT. I have been appreciating the general flavor of your edits and I hope to see your editing style develop in more of a strict MilHist kind of way.

You know, that PBS URL you added might work better as an external link in that article! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QE class

What appears to be your edit of Queen_Elizabeth_class_battleship#Between_the_Wars ends in the middle of a sentence. It would be nice to see it completed. --Glaucidium (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Coral Sea

Please discuss changes to this article on the talk page. Your edits have removed days of work by Cla68 which were sourced and properly cited. This type of editing by you is becoming a perennial problem. If you keep this up, I may be forced to bring the next occurrence up to the proper noticeboards for possible community sanctions. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the assumption of removal of material. The point about un-discussed edits still stands, especially since you did not use an edit summary, and by looking at your prior edit history, seems to be a common occurrence. Edits without a summary make it extremely difficult for others to know what you are doing to the article and can lead to what has happened here. Also, you say that there is discussion on the article's talk page, but I see none from you there? In any event, if you want to make those edits again, I have no objection, but Cla might. Also, please do take heed of my comments about using edit summaries since their usage will hopefully lead to less misunderstandings. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Formula One season

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit here, where I had removed the suggestion that Juan Pablo Montoya was still in contention for the world championship in Japan. I am afraid that he was definitely not - even if he had won and neither Schumacher or Raikkonen had scored, he would have been tied on points with Schumacher, and the German would have taken the title on countback, as he had won far more races than Montoya. Only Schumacher and Raikkonen were still in contention for the title. Angmering (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it must have been something like that. Thanks! Angmering (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Rod Langway

Please make sure you're adding accurate information to articles. This edit that you did in September 2008 is incorrect. Langway scored a goal in overtime in that series, but it was John Druce who scored the game winning goal in game 5. The goal Langway scored in overtime made the series 3-1. [8] [9]

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2+2

I've requested full protection on 2+2 so we can discuss whether a "2+2" must only have 2 rear seats or if it can have more.--Mw-wsh (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you discuss your changes to 2+2 ? As you repeatedly reverted changes can you elaborate on why you think the changes are necessary ?--Mw-wsh (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no discussion on changes ?--Mw-wsh (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no discussion on changes - talk would help. --Mw-wsh (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Lortie

Looks like you and I added something similar to different parts of the page - I combined them. What is your source for this:

At the CFS, somehow he had received in his possession both of the keys required to open an ammunition locker, the keys are supposed to be held by different personnel as a security precaution.

The source for mine is possibly apocryphal - ex-military volunteer tourguide at the Defenbunker - I didn't see two locks on the locker: http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f17/vladhed/?action=view&current=Gunlockup.jpg Vladhed (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician)

FWIW, reverting what you view as a POV edit is not protected from 3RR as it is not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and both you and Skookum are edit warring over the article. I am really left with three options here... block the both of you for edit warring/WP:3RR violations, fully protect the article to stop both of you from editing it entirely, or ask that the two of you step back and discuss how to deal with the article. Right now, I am choosing option number three, and I would rather not have to step back and revisit options one or two. I might suggest filing a request for comment so as to gain more opinions and build a consensus. Thanks, Reso lute 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Focus (North America)

I wanted to ask you about your change today to this article. You put back a paragraph that makes some very big statements, with just one citation at the end of the paragraph, which only refers to one comment in your paragraph, about the "placeholder." And since this is also a blog, refecting one person's (credentials?) opinion, this makes the paragraph seem like original research or conjecture -- i.e., just opinion without solid sourcing. What are you thinking/intending here? I think it might be possible to flesh out some of the 'problem areas' your paragraph refers to WITH sound references... but in lieu of the sound resources for now, I think the paragraph doesn't belong. Let me know what you think. Thanks. 842U (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrons!

		The WikiChevrons
		For outstanding improvements to the article 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Rod Langway. Thank you. It is still unclear what the point of your edit is. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Sandler

Hi -

I notice that you reverted Herbert Sandler to a pre-modification, COATRACK version. There were BLP issues with it, which I explained in my edit summaries. Did you have a concern with it that I can address for you? I'm surprised you didn't give a reason for your revert. Please respond on my talk page. - Philippe 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard again

Hi GoldDragon, I know you are followed by a user who doesn't seem to login anymore and annoys you but you well know that you are both edit warring by reverting the fact tags and risking a block. I also do wonder where the sources are for the facts questioned here. Where does it say that the Toros lease was negotiated by Bill Ballard and where does it say Ballard denied the Toros access to the Leafs' locker room, forcing them to build their own at a cost of $55,000? If you could just replace the fact tag with a ref tag, it would be so much less drama. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this particular article, he is removing fact tags from several other articles as well. Not to mention, he seems to be adding info to the articles that clearly don't belong, but as soon as another editor changes even one word to the nonsense he adds, it gets reverted, thus keeping all the info that he has added to the article. Check out Mike Gartner, the article makes mention of how long he played without winning a Stanley Cup or post season awards, and he decides to add info on another player who had a long carreer but didn't make his finals debut until age 40, 7 months (incliding the date). Now this obviously has nothing to due with the article at hand, yet soon as the nonsense is removed, it gets reverted by Golddragon. 142.167.227.180 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Focus review

Hi,

I was wondering where you happened to come across the review of the Ford Focus that you cited in the Focus article. I'm curious because I wrote it, and I'm always interested in how readers happen across my material.

I also hope you're satisfied with the compromise on the Focus article. As I noted in my edit summary, it's not true that the Focus has a low market share (it's one of the best-selling compact cars in the US) and that it received no mechanical updates (as I'd said in an earlier edit summary, the engines were replaced in 2005). IFCAR (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus LS sections

Hi GoldDragon, thanks for your good faith contributions to Lexus LS. Just to let you know, I removed the re-addition of the UCF10, safety and reception sections because of GA peer review suggestions. Those references are already integrated into the respective generation sections (UCF10, UCF20, USF41 etc). The safety features info can be found there; reception and other review info is also moved or duplicated in linked articles. I had added those sections myself before the review, but was asked to eliminate those sections in the review, also it affects overall length. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Terry Murray. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this friendly advice that you may be perceived as engaging in edit warring on the Gates articles. Happy editing,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge camera

Just a note that you're over 3rr, and a request that you actually follow wp:BRD. NJGW (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Holyday

I don't know what your problem is with that statement. It is properly referenced and has been on this page for over a year. I think the onus is on you to find a balancing statement rather than simply removing it. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, this discussion should be continued on the talk page, not through an edit war. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composite report from 9-11 call and from interviews at scene

No worries. (...Of course, if no partyies spoke to the officers at the scene, the officers then would have had nothing else but the 9-11 calls to have based their report on, right?) ↜Just M E here , now 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Users may remove almost anything they want from their talkpage. Please consider this your only warning to cease edit-warring on User talk:Viriditas. If you continue restoring content that s/he has removed, I will seek an admin to have you blocked for edit warring. I trust that is crystal clear. → ROUX ₪ 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Doug Holyday. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moment

In light of Squidfryerchef's reasonable edit here which, in my view, correctly deleted the Robin Wells commentary from Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, will you consider and possibly edit Teachable moment#Political use? You will see that I copied and re-used your text in its entirety.

In this narrowly defined sub-section context, I plan to add a few more examples of "spin", expanding beyond this initial list. I wonder if this can be achieved consistent with WP:NPOV? --Tenmei (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of ~~72 hours~~48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring ~~and sockpuppetry~~. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I have never used any sockpuppets, and I have certainly never heard of The Bronze Lizard. One editor may have expressed concern but there should be IP proof, I actually took part in discussions for bridge cameras [10]. Plus, I was not edit-warring on Doug Holyday, it was just 1 revert (as opposed to 2R or 3R).}}

{{unblock|I further believe that the block was unjustified, as the allegations of edit warring and sockpuppetry were from an anon user that has been trolling me for some time: You blocked GoldDragon for 24 hours. As soon as the block expired, he went back to the same edit war.[1]. Also, someone using a similar name, The Bronze Lizard, has been carrying on several of GoldDragon's edit wars. Thought you would want to know. 69.159.28.35 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)}}

I'm not going to address this unblock request owing to my history with GoldDragon, but it does strike me as likely that this Bronze Lizard business was a frameup; a blatant 3RR violation with an apparently sockpuppet named similarly to the main account, reported by an I.P. user, seems a little suspect. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recently noted at User talk:King of Hearts#GoldDragon, I too find it quite suspicious and unlikely to be GoldDragon. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address the unblock request either (given my extensive past dealings with GoldDragon), but I agree the Bronze Lizard account is likely a frame-up. CJCurrie (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser says the 2 users are

Unlikely to be related. -- Luk ^talk 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war issues

Hey there... I realize we never talked before, but I thought you might find my lessons learned regarding edit wars (to keep myself sane and step back) useful. Feel free to comment, preferably without reference to specific incidents or users. I put them on my talk page Manyanswer (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audi S8

Hi, you've made some recent edits in the Audi A8 and Audi S8 articles - however, you made some factually incorrect submissions, the most obvious is that the S8 is not produced by quattro GmbH - it is still produced by Audi AG. Regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

id Tech 4

Hello, GoldDragon. It appears that the following analysis was first added by you:

id Tech 4 resulted in the obsolescence of DirectX 7.0 graphics chips such as the widespread GeForce 2 and Radeon 7200, as well as DirectX 6.0 chipsets such as RIVA TNT2 and Rage 128, and software rendering (with an integrated Intel GMA). Until the advent of id Tech 4, a powerful CPU was able to somewhat compensate for an older video card. While John Carmack initially warned gamers not to purchase the GeForce 4 MX (which casual consumers often confused with the DirectX 8.0 GeForce 4 Ti, though it was at best an improved DirectX 7.0 GeForce 2), its somewhat widespread adoption compelled id Software to enable Doom 3 to run on these cards, making it the only DirectX 7.0 chip capable of doing so.

Do you have any sources for this? I would love to use it again elsewhere Xeriphas1994 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Linden edits

Before this turns into an edit war, I'll explain why I reverted your edits of a few days ago. Though before I do that, I just want to clarify that I have nothing to do with the IP who has been starting an edit war, I'm not that childish. Anyways:

In regards to the additional information about the 1994 Finals, I would say that a lot of it is more appropriate to the relevant article. Further to that, the website used as a source is not exactly a reliable source, and the information about Tanguay being the next player to score 2 goals in a game 7 is rather trivial in an article about Linden.
About the Keenan/Messier stuff, I'm more concerned about the fact that its incorrect. While Quinn was fired first, Keenan was only hired after Renney was fired, and technically the GM position was shared between several executives with the Canucks, including Keenan. And the source provided doesn't show anything about Linden regretting giving the captaincy to Messier.

Thats why I reverted the edits the other day. Not that I'm against adding anything to the article, but what was added didn't really fit in with the article. Hopefully we can resove this without it turning into something ugly. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMW M5

Care to explain what you were doing here? If you're going to undo an edit, make sure there isn't a rational argument behind it in the edit summary AND then make sure if you still want to revert it you explain why. Thanks :), Matty (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Her Sister's Keeper

The article Her Sister's Keeper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ramage

I see where you have some problems with this article, and I can't say I blame you on the criminal history part, but reverting all edits made since a version you edited in June 2009 doesn't solve anything. Not all edits made since then are connected to the problem you have with the article, and as a result 6 months of legitimate edits by other editors are getting removed in the process. Why not discuss the problems you have, and see what can be done about them, and then edit that particular section of the article, rather than just reverting the whole article. Cmr08 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problems with this article have been taken care of. You should check and see if its ok now. Cmr08 (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Descent: FreeSpace – The Great War

Wikipedia policies are based on WP:V and the exclusion of original research. Your edits are introducing information which are either unsourced or unsupported by the sources. Continued violations of policies can be construed as vandalism (unconstructive edits to the project). Please read the policies and improve your editing pattern. Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello GoldDragon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Liang Chow - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Stanley Cup Finals

Please see the discussion on the talk page. Your repeated reversions, without any edit summaries explaining your actions, aren't doing a lot of good. RGTraynor 10:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable transitions" section of "United States presidential transition"

I thought that you might want to know that I added {{Cite check}}, {{not in citation given}} and {{citation needed}} template messages to the "Notable transitions" section of the "United States presidential transition" article to which you contributed. Please see this comment I left on the talk page for an explanation of why I put them there. Thanks. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rankin

You created this article about two years back. OTRS has received a complaint about the article; could you please clean it up so it passes WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Thank you. NW (Talk) 20:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I am going to give you one warning, since you are resorting to beginning an edit war at Scharnhorst class battleship. Use the talk page and discuss your edits before you make them again, you know better than to continue to make your edits once they have been reverted per WP:BRD. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Battlecruiser. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring and no discussion

I am still seeing you continue to push to get your way in maritime articles (specifically on battleships and battlecruisers) even after being reverted. You've been told many times to discuss your edits once they are contested, but it appears that you have no desire to do just that. In that case I will make this very simple, if I notice this pattern of behavior again, one of two things will happen: I will either initiate a discussion at the appropriate administrative noticeboard to determine what sanctions may be appropriate, or if the issue is severe enough, issue a block myself on the spot. This really is your last warning -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you are not using edit summaries for all edits and are not following WP:BRD by discussing this on the talk page you are still being reverted due to your unwillingness to discuss regardless of modifications. I am certain that the editors who are reverting you would gladly enter into a discussion on the respective talk pages of the articles. To that end, you are still edit warring, which is something that you have had plenty of prior blocks for. So I will say this again, you absolutely must begin to discuss these edits on the article's talk pages before making further undo or reverts. This is not something you can choose to disregard, our edit warring and 3rr policies are set in stone and those blocks are usually not overturned, especially for editors who have a history of that offense. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

While you have begun to discuss your edits, you still are having problems. This edit history page shows you are still having problems adhering with consensus from the talk page. Since you are still not fully entering into discussion and accepting consensus even when it is against your version, I have blocked your for 31 hours for disruptive editing with the predicate acts being your continued revert warring and failure to adhere to the bold-revert-discuss process. If you wish to appeal, you are welcome to place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page and an uninvolved administrator will review the block. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

I see that you are still edit warring (this time on Pre-dreadnought battleship) and have even managed to be so disruptive to have an article fully protected (Battlecruiser). It is clear from your continued behavior that you have no desire to abide by our rules re collaborative editing and discussion. The next time I notice such behavior (including another revert without meaningful discussion), I will be inclined to indefinitely block you, but I will most likely bring the matter to WP:ANI where the same thing may end up happening. Watch your step... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On pre-dreadnought battleship, I have to side with the IP. To investigate this, I pulled out my copy of Dreadnought and no where on the pages you have cited is what you are trying to cite, unless you are attempting to put words into Massie's mouth, which is also unacceptable. And yes you are edit warring there since the IP has a significant and valid reason to make the revert and you are not discussing the matter, instead acting as if it is just pure vandalism which it is not and I can attest to upon examination of the book in question. If you continue to insist on this behavior I will be forced to report you and possibly ask for a blanket maritime warfare topic ban. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Queen Elizabeth

Hi, i reverted your reversion on Cunards original Queen Elizabeth as the ship was never operated as a hotel in Florida, her final Cunard Captain - Commodore Geoffrey Thrippleton Marr gave tours of her during her stay before she went bankrupt. She was then sold at auction to the Tung organization all this is mentioned in Commodore Marrs autobiography "The Queens and i", as he delivered her to her new home from Southampton, Marr was then personally hired by CY Tung himself to be advisor to the european chinese crew as they attempted to sail her from Florida to Hong Kong for her refit which eventually took six months.

Poison-piglett (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Brians

GoldDragon, several months ago you repeatedly tried to add the same info to the article. It was reverted by several different editors as irrelevant, having nothing to do with the article. Somebody in the media jokingly making a comment that was nothing but a play on words is not something that warrants a mention in an encyclopedia, especially when it has nothing to do with the article. In the past you have said you didn't want an edit war, but kept reverting the article back to your version, and when asked to take it to the talk page, ignored the offer. Can you please explain why something so trivial as a play on words belongs in the article? Will you atleast discuss this rather than just reverting? Cmr08 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I still think it's pretty trivial to make so much out of a play on words, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and leave it in the article. If there are others who have a problem with it, we can deal with it then. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning, rather than just re-adding it without discussion. Cmr08 (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Thain

GoldDragon, the "Superman" reference sounds alot better now. I should have googled the names instead of reverting. Sorry. Cmr08 (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chrysler (copy-paste)

Hi GoldDragon! You appear to have copied and pasted text from Lee Iacocca to History of Chrysler. While copying and pasting within Wikipedia is perfectly ok, you have to be sure to explain in your edit summary where the text came from. Otherwise, there is no way to attribute where the text came from and others will falsely assume that you created the text. Also, the History of Chrysler article now has two sections about the 1979 bailout. I would encourage you to work at integrating the text into the article to avoid having two copies of the same topic and also using a {{Main|Lee Iacocca}}-style link to set off the paragraph about Iacocca's being hired by Chrysler. For more information about copying and pasting within Wikipedia, please see: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you, -- Joren (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joren again. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your edit copying info from Lee Iacocca to History of Chrysler has created work that needs to be done. I would do it myself, but I don't have so much time these days. The work that needs to be done:

Attribute the copied-and-paste edits. This can be done by placing the {{Copied}} template on both articles' discussion pages.
There are two sections about the 1979 bailout. Your edit created the second section, and some information is being duplicated. The second needs to be integrated into the first section.
Use {{Main}} template to create a "Main Article: Lee Iacocca" link that will appear above the section on Lee Iacocca.

Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger & Me

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Wikispan (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your original research, tied to a book (that nowhere mentions the film) and a blog. Please familiarise yourself with WP:OR and WP:RS. Also learn to attribute criticisms to the people who make them. Thank you. Wikispan (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boastful Superlatives (BS)

Please do not add undefined terms and opinions to the luxury vehicle article. Major sections of the article are already full of peacock and weasel terms promoting particular brands and models. These Boastful Superlatives (BS) only mimic the self-serving needs of automotive journalists that regurgitate each automaker's marketing departments. The term "luxury" is meaningless because it is used to refer to every possible model made by every automaker. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include content that represents inappropriate promotion of particular cars and brands. One of your "sources" (linked here) does not even use the term "luxury" to describe these small, but expensive for their size and class vehicles. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines, and avoid marketing and promotion. Thank you CZmarlin (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon, Your addition of marketing hype to the luxury vehicle article is what I think prevents it from "moving forward".

This includes numerous needless statements and opinions. The description "the means to pay for them" simply means "these cars have a higher price tag than would be normally expected because some people are willing to spend more for a brand name and its image", see: The affluent consumer: marketing and selling the luxury lifestyle by Ronald D. Michman and Edward M. Mazze, Greenwood Publishing, 2006, ISBN 9780275992828. You have provided no references for "young customers who have a more refined taste" because that is just ordinary marketing puffery.

Your contributions include marketing material that is only supported by obviously promotional sources. As I have tried to explain, the term "luxury" is overused to the point that it has become meaningless. Now you are adding new market segments that are not even titled "luxury", but "premium".

The obvious trend in this article is to include everything. Therefore, I think there should be a special section about "premium microcars" and include the Tata Nano Luxury model ([11]). There are already many, many citations that describe the Tata's Nano as a "luxury vehicle", even without attaching an "exclusive" brand name on it like Tata's Jaguar. Clearly, the "Tata Nano is becoming the rich-man's luxury" in its domestic market segment, as described in the article by Devang Murthy in TopNews Network on 09/07/2010). Moreover,Tata Motors plans to launch a luxury version of the Nano in 2012 that will be sold in many nations, as reported by Ashok Virath on September 6, 2010. Since Tata owns both Jaguar and Land Rover, I would not be surprised if they attach a Jaguar logo to a "limited edition" with all kinds of features including "high-quality interior materials" that are the hallmarks of premium, luxury, ultra cars, and of course, people will pay extra!

And speaking of luxury vehicles, I think you should also devote a whole section for custom luxury golf carts.

Go for it! CZmarlin (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Chrétien attack ad

GoldDragon, I just wanted to let you know that in your attempt to insist that your version of the 1993 Chrétien attack ad article be the version that remains, you have also removed a legitimate edit I made correcting the section titles per wikipedia policy. I even cited the policy WP:Headings in the edit summary, yet you still edited back two edits to your version. It's obvious you are not going to stop the revert nonsense, but can you please check and see if the edits made after your version have anything to do with your edit before just blind reverting back to your version. It will save other editors from having to go back and fix them. Now, the edit I made is lumped in with your edit, so everytime the article gets reverted, the section titles are also going to be reverted. Cmr08 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese holdout

Please stop re-inserting this ridiculous paragraph about TIE fighter pilots into the article. It's completely irrelevant to the article. The "popular culture" section of that article is stupid enough already. KarlM (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Smitherman

Hi, your addition there looked like a large cut and copy paste addition with some copyright issues, could you explain what you addition was, it was large and I was unsure, I saw the copyright sign and the size of it and thought better revert it, let me know, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please discuss on the talkpage and explain your edits, thanks. 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting your edits to 512 St. Clair

I have reverted your additions of material because they present only one side of the issue. They are inconsistent with WP:NPOV, which says:

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

You responded in an edit summary: "editors are welcome to add supporting info in the aftermath section". This puts the onus of balancing your POV on other editors. It is the responsibility of all editors to ensure a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a debating forum where each side tries to get its viewpoint across by building up their own arguments. Wikipedia is about facts and about neutrality. If you are unwilling to fairly present both points of view, then your contributions violate a core Wikipedia policy and are not welcome.

Also, you have been around here far too long to plead ignorance of the correct way to capitalize headings in Wikipedia. Your on-going violations of WP:HEAD are disruptive. Please stop doing that. Ground Zero | t 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been advised by others editors of WP:BRD. Please respect this with regard to our debate about this article. your edits are contentious. they should not be restored again until the issue is resolved on the talk page. Edit warring can lead, as you know, to being blocked. i urge you not to choose that route again. Ground Zero | t 03:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

I keep coming across examples of you adding headings that violate WP:HEAD. Please stop doing this. Don't create unnecessary work for other editors. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldDragon, is there a reason you continue to incorrectly add section titles to articles? I just had to fix two articles where you added titles in all caps, after the correct policy had been pointed out to you by me in several edit summarys, and by Ground Zero above. It's posible you may have missed my corrections, but you did acknowledge Ground Zero's message when you wrote the following on Talk:512 St. Clair,

"As for the section Headers, I will admit that I made a mistake, however you could have just quietly corrected that rather than use that as justification to kill my edits. GoldDragon (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While I don't know the whole story about what led you to make that statement on that talk page, I have done what you said the other editor should have done and that's "quietly corrected" the mistakes, but that doesn't seem to have worked as 4 days later you are still incorrectly adding them. Maybe I should have pointed out the mistakes here on your talk page in the past, but I'm doing that know. Anyways, I guess it's not that big of a deal, as the edits are now corrected, but could you please re-read the policy WP:Headings so that other editors don't have to go back keep fixing the section titles. Cmr08 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I did not just "quietly correct" Gold Dragon's errors. They were not one-off errors or typos. It is a pattern of behaviour over a long period of time. I am happy to read that he finally understands that this is wrong and won't do it anymore. This will save unnecessary work for other editors. Ground Zero | t 03:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he does. He posted that message on another talk page several days ago, acknowledging he was wrong, but since than has continued to make the same edits, adding titles in all caps. The way I used that quote made it appear like he himself posted it in this section, which wasn't my intention. Cmr08 (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits on Highway 402

Thanks for beefing up this article! Your recent edit adds a good amount of content to the article, but you didn't source any of it. Even though I know it's all correct, it needs to be verifiable. Please add some citations and references if you can. Haljackey (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATI Technologies page

Could you please explain what it is you were trying to do in this edit, GoldDragon? (Warning: large page.)
It added over 140KB of content & extremely byte-intensive markup to ATI Technologies, a size increase of 650 percent. The page now crashes multiple browsers, and this is on a pretty powerful machine.

The addition included an AfD template for a different article—which closed as Keep, and placed interlanguage links at multiple points up and down the page as well as various page or protection tags.

Your edit summary was "list of ATI GPUs". It'd be useful to find out where this content came from. Because the AfD template you added included "Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units", I'm guessing it came from the article under that name; but that page hasn't decreased in size recently, plus was kept at AfD. Incidentally, there're some important steps to try and remember to go through whenever you copy between articles. Perhaps you were trying to do a merge?

Actually, the template was what led me to the page. Wikilinks to articles pending deletion display in a different color for me. When I did look I couldn't see any deletion tag, so I checked in edit mode and found the one referring to the other article. I'm happy to offer assistance if need be, but right now I don't know what it was you were trying to do. Replying here is fine. Thanks and happy holidays. –Whitehorse1 11:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding highway articles

I'll start this off by saying I very much appreciate the efforts you are and continue to put in to improving these articles.

However, that being said, I think you need to look into a few things; I've been (and still am) in the process of rewriting all of the 400 series highway articles over the past year to bring them up to a minimum of Good Article status. This entails making the writing cohesive rather than a splattering of facts, which many Ontario road articles are at this point, as well as adding sources to every statement of fact, any future construction, and really anything at all that is written. This also means chopping out many of the trivial facts that are better presented on roadgeek sites (an example of this is all the specifics on the Aluminum Tapered Leg gantries. If you look on the Highway 401 article, this is mentioned as "the replacement of the original gantries throughout the collector-express system,[144]"

There are two reasons I'm posting here. One is to tell you not to feel discouraged if it feels like Haljackey or myself are slaughtering every contribution you make; I certainly take every contribution you make in good faith. The second is to encourage you to take a look at {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite map}} and {{cite report}}, WP:CITE and WP:Reliable Sources, as well as browsing through the articles, to learn how we are sourcing statements in the article. Don't cite pictures; cite the object in the picture. Cite the map book, not the (copyright) picture of one on imageshack. Websites such as thekingshighway.ca and onroads (at AsphaltPlanet) are not reliable, as they are self-published sources.

And of course, if you haven't already, take a look at the information, guidelines and resources available at WP:ONRD and consider joining. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:02, 2 January 2011 (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 an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikispan (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy, pasting and reverting

GoldDragon, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I'm really confused by a number of edits you have made in the last 24 hours or so. You should know by now that copying and pasting online bios into wikipedia articles is not allowed. However, for some reason that I can't seem to understand, you copied and pasted an online biogrpahy into an article, removed it and then went to another article and repeated the same action. In fact, you repeated this over and over again. John M. Spratt, Jr., Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, Dave Obey, Chet Edwards, Russ Feingold, Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Chet Culver, Chris Dodd, Judd Gregg, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, and Brad Henry are the articles that you copied, pasted and then reverted. You must have done this in these 14 articles for a reason, can you explain why? Cmr08 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand. There bios would be removed from the web and you wanted to save a copy for your future use in editing the article? Is that what you're saying? Cmr08 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fences&Windows 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:35, 6 January 2011 (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).

GoldDragon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As frustrating as it seems, I don't think that this was a illegitimate reason, furthermore Cmr08's evidence of SubcommandanteM was way back in September 2009. In fact, the reason why they brought on the ANI was for edit warring and not sockpuppetry. GoldDragon (talk) 12:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason for your block - namely, sockpuppeting. You'll need to discuss your use of MaxForce (talk · contribs). TN X Man 18:18, 6 January 2011 (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.

Last stand

See Talk:Last stand#Battle of Iwo Jima. I was going to give you time to reply and discuss your recent addition and not edit the edit until you had done so. But as you are blocked for two weeks, I will revert the edit and when you are editing again, then perhaps you would be kind enough to provide the requested quote on the talk page and discuss the edit before reinstating the paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is because, despite having been warned (and blocked) about sockpuppeting, you have continued to edit in that manner. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences

This is interesting, isn't it?

[12]

69.159.12.140 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This too!

[13]

69.159.14.18 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	very useful. Srinivasan 16:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MAG Innovision

The article MAG Innovision has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is unreferenced, and makes a point of stating that the company isn't particularly notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sherrie Lea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sherrie Lea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherrie Lea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Resist the impulse to make substantial edits at articles that do not include citations to accompany your edits, even if you are an expert in the area.

Particular articles are plagued by content additions without verifiability (in violation of WP:VERIFY, and approaching if not achieving violation of WP:COPY and WP:OR), to the point that all or nearly all of the text of the article is unverifiable.

Even if you are en expert, the next editor arriving—to follow the pattern set, of content addition without attribution or verifiability—will likely lack your expertise, and your intellectual integrity (with regard to no making changes without expertise). If such patterns are allowed to develop, the value of the article, and eventually, the encyclopedia, diminishes, and their futures are at risk. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hello Dafna sol lerer babayoff (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]