User talk:Kallahan

Welcome!

Hello, Kallahan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Eric Violette

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eric Violette, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eric Violette seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eric Violette, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize for the unfriendly welcome I have given you. When several newly registered editors jumped into the Super Duper Tuesday merge debate, I failed to assume good faith and unfortunately jumped to conclusions. As an admin, I should know better and am sorry you were bitten.

While I understand if you feel otherwise, I hope you believe me when I say that my speedy deletion nomination of the Eric Violette article had nothing to do with our Super Tuesday disagreement. As new Wikipedia users are more likely to create questionable content, I normally review and "clean up" the contributions of new editors as I run into them. I am sorry for any appearance of impropriety on my part, as that was never my intention. Regardless, as a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, I am more than willing to get you a copy of the article if you wish to recreate a WP:NOTE-compliant version with sources and citations.

Thank you for your time, and sorry again for starting things out on the wrong foot. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please considering warning vandals after reverting them

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Super Tuesday (2008): You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While many anonymous editors really are just testing, too many are vandals, and in my opinion, vandalism is the most insidious threat to Wikipedia. In the case of persistent or repeat vandals, the only way to effectively protect the project is have the editor's IP address blocked, and the only way to have a vandal blocked is after an escalating series of warnings. In the case of 63.226.41.164 (talk · contribs), I went ahead and issued an {{uw-error1}} warning after you reverted their edit to Super Tuesday (2008). Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism, Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate estimation table

There currently is a discussion for removing the table on the talk page, so the removal was not done out of the blue. If you think more discussion is needed, feel free to leave your opinion. The discussion is here Talk:Opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008#Table for 15% threshold. Leebo ^T/C 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday

I agree completely with your sentiment [1] on Super Tuesday. However only administrators can protect articles, so I went ahead and semi-protected it until the day after the election. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Results table

Nice work on the results table you added [2] to the Super Tuesday (2008) article! The table added by Ericl back in July [3] was ok, but I could never figure out how to make it "better" short of just copy-and-pasting individual lines out of Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Your solution looks great! Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Er ... did you mean to remove West Virginia [4]? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Overly exuberant deletions are not idiotic, they are just ... bigger than we intended! However if you want really stupid, you should check out some of my recent blunders! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of projects supported by George Soros

I have nominated List of projects supported by George Soros, 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/List of projects supported by George Soros. 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. Mønobi 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday II, 2008

I just created the Super Tuesday II, 2008 article. If you could look it over with your expert eye, I would be most appreciative. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Texas primary

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus on the Texas issue. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

McHenry Article

Please provide the reason why you feel it necessary to remove factual, sourced information from the McHenry page- it seems you have some reason to be concerned with it. --152.17.138.92 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday III, 2008

If you could cast your expert eye over the newly created Super Tuesday III, 2008 article, I would appreciate it. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday II, 2004

Er ... perhaps my understanding of the dates is wrong, but since Mini-Tuesday was held on February 3 and the main Super Tuesday event was in March ... then Super Tuesday II, 2004 was actually that year's March Super Tuesday election? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discover the Networks

David Horowitz's right-wing political polemic site is flagrantly biased, agenda-driven and not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions. Do not reinsert its citations. FCYTravis (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert material which has been removed because it is not cited to a reliable source. Doing so is a violation of our verifiability policy and may lead to your being blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted again because... that was the last good version. I did not realise that you reverted me twice on the article - first to the totally stripped version then to the unacceptable version. I simply undid your last edit - which took the article back to the totally stripped version that you edited in. The version now existing contains reliable sources, and is thus, of course, acceptable and useful. FCYTravis (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at talk page of List of projects supported by George Soros. You can ask an advice at the notice board or find other sources.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion, and you are welcome to participate there. I would recommend to cite some alternative sources if possible.Biophys (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• What the guys above said. Being cited is not a magic talisman, especially if the purported source is polemical. See WP:ONUS. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

Why are you simply blinding reverting my attempts to work a solution at the AfD? The revert of the move, being a use of your administrator tools, is especially egregious. What is your problem with renaming the article more appropriately? I consider this a rather clear abuse of your admin tools. S. Dean Jameson 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your reversion did nothing to further discussion. It was, quite simply, a use of your tools to force your position. You make two equally weak points in your post to my talk: 1) I did not "delete" anything with the redirect. I simply... well... redirected it, which didn't affect the discussion happening in the least. 2) When that was reverted, I tried to come up with something that would perhaps have allowed some "deletes" to slide to "keep." At least one other editor (who had previously disagreed with me) fully supported my move. You took it upon yourself, not to discuss the reasoning (which I fully elucidated in my post to the AfD), but instead to misuse your tools to revert the move. There was nothing at all wrong with the move. You've offered no reasoning for your reversion that holds any logical consistency. The best course of action would probably be for you to simply revert your inappropriate use of your tools. In the alternative, we may have to take this to ANI. Your use of tools damaged what could have coalesced into a very clear consensus to keep. S. Dean Jameson 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you berating Kallahan for his "inappropriate use of your tools" ... when he does not have any tools (not even rollback)? The fellow has barely 600 edits and not even a year of experience, yet you threaten to take him to ANI for "misuse" of tools he never had ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. I'm a bit confused by this as well, as I was under the impression that only an admin could move a page back to its original name. With or without tools though, the move back was not helpful at all. S. Dean Jameson 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is unhelpful is redirecting/deleting an article against consensus, then moving an article against consensus, then threatening to delete in spite of a user protecting the consensus view from actions against that consensus, and then threatening to have a user's non-existent administrative privileges revoked if consensus isn't allowed to be circumvented. The question on the table is deletion. You have come out in favor of it. Consensus is against. I await the admin to affirm that. Moreover, if you'd like to propose a page move, I welcome it and consensus will prevail. But your bullying is not helping this process. -- Kallahan (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to reread what AfDs are for. It's not a strict keep/delete dichotomy. Once you participate in quite a few, you'll see comments of "delete and merge", "keep, but trim and then redirect", "rename" and all sorts of other options. It's not an "us vs. them" thing, it's working toward what's best for the project. As I said below, I apologize for my frustrated comments that contributed to the wrong foot that you and I have started out on. S. Dean Jameson 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seriously, I don't want to argue/fight/discuss angrily this issue with you. I just ask you to take an honest look at the article with its new title. With it, I (and probably a few other "deletes" as well) view this as a clear keep. With the more "predictive" title, I view it as something less than that. I apologize for my frustration earlier. I was under the mistaken impression that you were an administrator attempting to bully me with the tools. Please forgive my previous intemperate communication. S. Dean Jameson 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to get into a heated discussion about this, either, but I take exception to your suggestion in your most recent move that I was reverting "in anger." I'm pretty sure I'm the one who has been advocating for a discussion of proposed changes before an action is taken -- especially if against consensus -- but for some reason you only want to have a discussion when it may mean the reversion of a delete/redirect/move that you've in fact unilaterally undertaken. Moreover, I appreciate that "keep" or "delete" are not the only outcomes of these deletion conversations, but there was nothing in the thread to suggest any of your actions were remotely agreed to, starting with your attempted redirect and most recently with your page move. -- Kallahan (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I will say, the redirect wasn't my best idea. In fact, it was a bad one. However, the move affects literally nothing about the content of the page, or the texture of the discussion, save that a few people (myself included) that felt that with the predictive title it should be deleted move to the "keep" section. As for what an AfD is for, it appeared from your "14-8" comment that you viewed AfD as a simple up-or-down vote on the fate of an article. It's definitely not that at all, and (as is my habit) I tried to find a middle way in the discussion. My first attempt (the redirect) fell pathetically short of that goal. For that, I apologize. The second attempt (the move) I feel was a legitimate middle way, that has a good chance of succeeding. It doesn't remove anything from the article, it just gives it a much more appropriate title. S. Dean Jameson 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • One further advantage of the move is that once it goes through, a separate article could be started for the new company, and the current content of the article (about the merger) could be maintained as a stand-alone article. S. Dean Jameson 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

You previously helped with some editing disputes at Patrick T. McHenry. I've tried the BLP noticeboard, requesting a third opinion--and so far no response. I know admins are busy though. Here are the links where I've tried to work out the dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_T._McHenry
Talk:Patrick_T._McHenry#Neutrality
User_talk:Ziegfest
User_talk:Ystava
Thanks!! Ystava (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev

The article Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As the merger has gone ahead and this page moved to the new company name this article is redundant

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. noq (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Kallahan! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Newspaper endorsements in United States presidential elections

The article Newspaper endorsements in United States presidential elections has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. Since you had some involvement with the Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev. Since you had some involvement with the Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Empires

Template:Empires has been nominated for merging with Template:Colonial empires. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.