User talk:Lmcelhiney/Archive 1

Vandalism to Bob and Tom Show

Thanks for your note on the vandalism to the Bob and Tom Show article by User:12.218.236.176. Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut WP:AIV). Take a look at the instructions to editors; it is a place to report vandalism after the editor has been warned — steps which should be taken prior to reporting the vandalism. This page is monitored by many administrators, so you will get a quick response. — ERcheck (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hermance

Thanks for the kind words and for starting that article! It takes a while to get the hang of doing bios. One thing to be mindful of is cutting and pasting. It's important to write everything in your own words to avoid copyright issues. Thanks to your good research, I just had to format things a bit. Keep up the great work! Jokestress 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

Hi there. There's a whole slew of warning templates at this page. If you scroll down a bit, you can see a table with the template name, as well as how it prints out on the page. Let me know if you need anything else. Joyous! | Talk 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lmcelhiney! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had several reports of this problem, unfortunatly though I am not in a position to determine either the cause or any potential fix. Try leaving a message on http://amidaniel.com/smf/index.php?board=11.0 AmiDaniel's forum] (there is not much of a response to messages on his talk page), and let me know if you find anything out. Sorry about this, Prodego ^talk 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been because your name was lowercase on the approved list. That shouldn't cause problems, but.. I had some problems with recent changes as well, make sure it isn't being blocked(it reads an RSS feed), and that it is set properly. Make sure to click update if it is on manual, of course. Restarting VP usually works for me. Prodego ^talk 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poets of the Fall Discography

I don't quite understand why you reverted my edit in Poets of the Fall article. Could you give me some reasons? --wlodi 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I guess it happened because I accidentally replaced the whole page with Discography-only section; it was caused by my computer crash and then Firefox's automatic back-up feature. Then Corpx classified it as an act of vandalism, Wiki sent me a warning and there we go. Thanks again for reverting to my version. --wlodi 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Quinn

Larry, Thanks for the thoughtful message regarding the revert of my edit. I understand your point of view (as well as the original author's) and I think it's a good topic for discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't discussed and went straight to print.

Because it is Quinn's Bio, it's hard for me to support topics that i feel are not factually based. The references to "big games" and critiques of Quinn's play seem to be severely opinionated. As someone that has followed Quinn his entire career, as I'm sure you are guilty of as well, it tends to aggravate me when people spew/repeat typical uniformed rhetoric. (I am showing my own bias now!)

For now, I'll let it go and wait for any sort of factual support.

Again, thanks for your message,

fuhreeus

--- Hi KelleyCook,

I certainly can understand your misunderstanding, but the section you deleted (regarding Brady Quinn's record) was not the work of an anonymous serial vandal.

Per the article History, User: Phydend had corrected the last of that anonymous vandalism at 1545hrs. Your edit at 1603hrs simply deleted a section that I had marked as "unreferenced" yesterday. It probably has some opinion therein, but it should not have been deleted pending someone determining that statements were factual or not.

Could you please revert it to the last version by User: Phydend or my last version User:Lmcelhiney as I'd rather not be blocked on the "3-revert rule."

Thanks for taking the time to correct this.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Have added the official Won-Loss record for 2003-2006 for the yearly rivalry games from the Official ND website.

Lmcelhiney 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D12

I was RC patrolling and was reverting vandalism to D12, which had been vandalised several times by different IPs and users. I went to the history and saw your name and the diff showed vandalism but I wondered if the was maybe an edit conflict gone wrong? I didn't want to slap a warning on your page without checking because you seem to be a good user. Thanks Farosdaughter 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I just removed a Death Prediction for 1/3/2007 and a nonsense line manually because no VandalProof rollback was available. I probably should have looked back further in the history, as you did. I do TRY to be a good user! :-) Happy New Year! Lmcelhiney 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good then! Happy New Year to you too! No doubt we shall meet again on the old RCP :D Farosdaughter 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Howard-Browne edits

HI Lmcelhiney - I have serious issues with the above article and would love to support you in helping to wikify it and remove the POV statements. Pedro1999a | Talk 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro1999a,

Well, I appreciate your willingness to support.

Be Bold!

It is amazing what power we have when we do some research--virtually all of what was added today was copied directly off of their website. No citations. No copyright notices for the images. Oops...

Delete, delete, delete.

I try to have a totally NPOV when it comes to editing even though it is something with which I don't agree or even find offensive. Unfortunately, some have agendas to get past and they typically don't read, understand or agree with the guidelines and policies.

I recently rewrote and merged the articles on Nails and Manicure to get rid of POV and pull fashion stuff out of the anatomical article. I bring it up as an example of following the guidelines on an article for which I have not specific knowledge or interest.

Look forward to our further collaboration.

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lmcelhiney. Great re-work of the article. I am watching with interest pending any reversions! Thank you! Pedro1999a | Talk 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My profile page

Something went wrong with my profile page. The text that was supposed to be on the left side is now crunched up in the column of my userboxes, and I don't know why. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is caused by

du-0

This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).

, but I don't understand why. It was never a problem before. You can see what it's dong here. It's dumbass, so I don't understand it. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well first of all, it appears that everything was shoved into an Infobox... When I removed it, it spread the user boxes across the page, but left most of your text at the bottom (as before?). Well, there are some non-standard box sizes in there, so it spacing things out funny--leaving lots of blanks. But, I put the code that I'd sent you in at the very top of the page and it reformatted as you can see. Here is the clue that comes from the non-standards respacing things. You can't format stuff like this by flowing it or it can overwrite other text. I believe that the code that I used is good because it is like an HTML stylesheet to format the "spaces" for the userboxes. SO, if you want to view it and try out the formatting code, great. Or, I can help if you want. Please let me know as it might just make lots of sense to you right now. At worst case, call me on 850-2002 tomorrow and I can talk you through some of this... Larry Lmcelhiney 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I had originally and still want, was the infoboxes in a column along the right like a sidebar with the main info at the left. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misunderstood what was going on. I finally realized that the template that you were using for du-0 was broken. I just stole the code from the template and placed it on your page (and above). Works fine, I believe. I wsn't going to leave the new formatting, I was just trying to see what was causing it by forcing it into a known condition and then got too busy at work to finish with the analysis. When I looked back to last month and your User page was still bad, I realized that the only thing that was common was the template code (which was broken). So, now you have the code in case you want to change it locally... Lmcelhiney 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! --Scottandrewhutchins 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit...

According to Chick's numerous "On Air" statements, this saying was an old family good luck saying which was said on the first day of the month. Lmcelhiney 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lmcelhiney, if life were "The Office" you'd be Dwight. Either you are Chick or you feel compelled to be the keeper of the aforementioned, self-appointed no doubt. Jccox58 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of Dwight of "The Office," though I assume that you are not attempting to compliment me. On the other hand, I have seen and talked to Chick about this article... Lmcelhiney 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems odd...Why would someone feel compelled to keep watch over information, as closely as you do, if you are not Chick and/or related to him? Also, I have seen and spoken with Chick, and believe me, it was all good. Jccox58 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heywood Banks

I can live with your edit to the Heywood Banks article. By the way, I live north of you, in Kokomo. Thanks, Reid Hochstedler 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I remember Kokomo well, having worked for a while in South Bend and communting each week from Indianapolis :-) Are you into your family genealogy, thought I saw some reference in passing over your Talk page? My website has my father's side back to 1760. Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Morgan Reynolds; Criterion validity; Carl D. Perkins; WFBQ; (Just Like) Starting Over; Mr. Holland's Opus; William-Henry Gauvin; South Hamilton, Massachusetts; Howard High School; Age of Consent (song); St. John Bosco High School; Youthink; Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy); Lunda Sul; Gordon Burnett Middle School; Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township; Lucas Grabeel; The Money Programme; Me, Myself and Irene

Cleanup: Videos of Osama bin Laden; Michael Nouri; Cow Belles
Merge: List of United States military history events; Radio Frequency Identification; Duck sauce
Add Sources: Touch typing; Henry B. Plant High School; Construction
Wikify: Darvel F.C.; Islamic pottery; Twenty Questions
Expand: Software industry; Hangnail; Laboratory

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User: Lmcelhiney

No problem, you must be doing something right in order to get your userpage vandalised! I have been on the receiving end myself many times before. —JeremyA 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mike armstrong 20ppi.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike armstrong 20ppi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Christian views of alcohol

Hi! I saw your recent tightening of Christian views of alcohol. On the whole, I think it was good work, but I did notice that you modified some of the (rather extended) quotations without inserting brackets or ellipses for the changes. Did you find the quotes to be inaccurate? I checked the MacArthur quote under #4, which is currently wrongly cited -- it should be [1] -- and found it to be accurate, meaning that ellipses are required for your deletion. Also, I think the sentence at the beginning that listed advocates of abstentionism with citations is useful for putting a some names to the idea, so I'd like to restore it. (Please respond here.) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 11:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex, Yes, the LONG quotes should have "..." inserted. The point is, they are long quotes. Since you have the links, there is no need to have the entire quote. That is editing. Regarding the long list of names... Try to establish an NPOV, rather than name dropping. A few, recent, names would be much more powerful than an overpowering list. The key point being, if this is such an important section, maybe it needs to be a separate article with a set of salient points here. It is significantly larger than the other two, supposedly "equal" points of view, even with my reductions. Please understand, I don't drink myself and find that there are good points here, but there is no neutrality in a lot of this article. Some editors would probably cut a lot more than I did. (Oh, and by the way, some of the quotes are from the 1980s--is there recent discussion and new material?) Thanks for getting back with me and I would be very interested in working with you to achieve a better article. Take care. Larry Lmcelhiney 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my previous edits by rewording to eliminate the long quotation and added ellipses. I think that adding short quotes from your prominent theologists list to these 5 points would be the best way to identify the proponents. Lmcelhiney 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, note that I am not an abstentionist, I didn't compose the text in that section, I'm not pushing an abstentionist POV or "name dropping," and they're not my theologians. Second, please assume good faith and check your facts before making accusations.

In reality, I wholely agree that the section on abstentionism needs to be rewritten and reduced and that its substance should not be made up almost entirely of (short or long) quotations. Even so, I think the list of names at the beginning is useful for putting some names to the position -- it demonstrates that it's not a bunch of fundies outside of mainstream evangelicalism (which is not an entirely inaccurate description of prohibitionism's advocates).

BTW, I added an ellipsis that you missed to the MacArthur quote mentioned above. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, obviously we were not communicating... I was making no accusations nor allusions. My referents above were to the article, not to you or your editing or suggestions. I know that we were both trying to improve the article and my reference to POV was related to how it should be changed, not who created it. I should have been more complete and said, "[We should] try to establish an NPOV, rather than name dropping [as was the previous direction]", but I was rushing off to work when and trying to write something quickly. Not sure what "fundies" are... I'd like to see a more parallel structure in the three different focal points, but don't have time to do the research, myself.

My original entry onto this article was to remove most of an online sermon from the 1980s which had been used verbatim. You seem to have been involved with more similar articles than I.

I hope that this brief explanation helps to smooth the waters. I am looking forward to any improvements that we can make. Thanks for understanding. Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I think we're on the same page. I want the article's POV to be improved as well. Aside from the abstentionism section, do you think it needs much POV work? If so, where? (BTW, fundies is shorthand for fundamentalists). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar encouragement, Larry. :-) --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, Since you've taken an interest in this article, would you give us your two cents at Talk:Christian_views_of_alcohol#Lead-in_phrase? Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic Projector

Hiya, I made some changes to the Cyrillic Projector article, but since I'm one of the people actually listed on the page (and my website is listed among the references), I'd feel better if someone else reviewed my edits, to head off any WP:COI concerns. If you have time, could you please take a look, and verify my changes? Thanks. --El on ka 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka, Not a problem, it will be later today or tomorrow from my schedule. I can see some refs from the Kryptos article which could be added as well. Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rex Martin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rex Martin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RE:Brady Quinn

Oh, Sorry I did not see that part. The Image is fine then, but it has to be next to the text, as opposed to a profile picture. Also, there seems to be something gong on with using the fair use magazine tag; Apparently, a cover can only be used in an article about itself - which is stated when one uploads an image". A user told me that a magazine cover only needed when words cannot explain or properly address the cover of a magazine. All in all though, it should be fine for now to use the image, If it's okay with you, I'm going to move the image. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rshell2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rshell2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]