User talk:SirIsaacBrock/Archive 1

USS Enterprise captures HMS Boxer

Hi, Isaac. I was just wondering why you created USS Enterprise captures HMS Boxer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It appears to just be a copy-and-paste from the USS Enterprise (1799) article, and it's not a title that anyone's likely to type into their search box. Any thoughts on where you were going with this? Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I agree. At least with the Adolf Hitler article, the trivia is in a section that is clearly marked so. The text I deleted from the War of 1812 article was in the intro paragraph, where it clearly doesn't belong. I edit a lot of articles about military history and military aircraft and I have noticed that sections labeled "<subject> references in Popular Culture" are popping up everywhere. Then they will go on about "<subject> is in the so-and-so video game" or science fiction book, or whatever. I would love to delete all of that crap, but I am sure I would get into an edit war. --rogerd 03:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KlansMan

I doubt I would be going very far out on a limb that "KMan" stands for Klans Man SirIsaacBrock 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMan is a very simple usage, and extrapolating it to that seems a bit extreme. I'm not sure if you're inferring anything by by what you said, but let me assure you it does not refer to me or my beliefs, KMan simply refers to the fact that I am male (above the age of 18) and my first name starts with "K". — TheKMan^talk 04:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hog-baiting

I don't understand the logic in moving Hog dogging to Hog-baiting. The convention is Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. A quick Google-test shows 5 times more links for "hog dogging" over "hog baiting". I don't see that inconsistency with other "baiting" sports amounts to such a conflict. It is not our job as Wikipedians make inconsistent things consistent. --Dystopos 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Baiting (animals) reflects that the term Hog-baiting is correct. Baiting has been occurring for hundreds of years, with the original and correct term for this article being "Hog-baiting". The recent popularity and repackaging of "Hog-Baiting" in Pop Culture with the more marketable term "Hog Dogging" being used, but it is neither the original nor correct terminology. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is in no position to dictate the correct term. It is "original and correct" to refer to a fax as a facsimile transmission, but the main article is, rightly, at Fax because that is the more common name. --Dystopos 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dog project.

I just happened to be looking at Elf's talk page since I left a comment there, and I thought that I would answer your question.

Yes, there is WikiProject Dog breeds and it is pretty organized. You can look at List of dog breeds or Category:dog breeds to determine how many breeds are there, while this does not catch everything, it gets most of them. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trysh. Usually I'd respond here, but I thought other people coming to my page might have similar questions, so I left a more detailed response on my talk page. Elf | Talk 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi! Basically, the article was a single sentence that described what could have been ascertained from the title. That and the external link made it a speedy for a lack of content and as a weblink placeholder. If you haven't yet done so, the article can be recreated. I's suggest adding more content or another admin is liely to clobber it again. Thanks and have fun! - Lucky 6.9 06:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done so. :) - Lucky 6.9 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger-baiting

I see that you're adding Category:Badger baiting dog breeds to a bunch of terriers. These dogs certainly weren't developed for, and I find it hard to believe that these dogs were ever used largely for, badger baiting. Admittedly the dachshund was used for hunting badgers, but that's not the same thing. I don't think the category should be applied to any random dog that someone or a few people might have used occasionally to see what happened. But I'm willing to be enlightened. What's your source for these categorizations? Thanks. Elf | Talk 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?!?

Look, I don't mind if someone has a beef with me. Let's keep it to ourselves and straighten things out before reporting someone as a vandal. Extremely short articles are often deleted on sight and within policy for a lack of content. No discussion is necessary. The article has been restored, content added, problem solved. - Lucky 6.9 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegal sports

I've made the change you suggested. Cockfight is not part of Category:Baiting, and street racing is an illegal sport which is not a blood sport at all. GCarty 08:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub images

I've replied to your question here. Hope that helps somewhat. —Kirill Lok s hin 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

[1] Please don't label works in progress as vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but cricket fighting is as much a blood sport as cock fighting or dog fighting. Why are you removing this? SchmuckyTheCat 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't create a separate article. It's entirely un-necessary. Cricket fighting is it's own article, but it's a blood sport like any other and belongs in a primary article. SchmuckyTheCat 23:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for liking my name. It's even better on foreign language versions of wikipedia. :) SchmuckyTheCat 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test

Kennel club stubs

Since your question about creating kennel club articles was more of general interest, I responded at Talk:Kennel club. Elf | Talk 02:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear (band)

because I haven't got round to adding the article yet. I will do, in a day or two, if someone else doesn't get there first.

Survival Knife Notification

Thanks for the Heads up on the Survival Knife article. I will do some damage control immediately, and then put it on the back burner to simmer and let my subconcious figure out what to add. It definitely needs a Rambo reference, in additon to a few other completely missing topics. --Knife Knut 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCI member countries

Can you identify where you're getting the info from on member countries? Canada, the US, and England are not member countries for sure, and so the AKC, CKC, and KC aren't members, and there are probably others. In addition, you're adding links to the FCI list to articles for clubs that most assuredly aren't members of the FCI, including (in addition to the preceding) United Kennel Club, Animal Research Foundation, Continental Kennel Club, National Kennel Club, Old Red English Bulldogges Association & Registry, and others I see in that page's What Links Here list. Could you please double-check your sources & remove FCI links from clubs who aren't members? Thanks. Elf | Talk 03:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sir IB's appropriate suggestion, conversation moved to Talk:List of FCI kennel clubs. Elf | Talk 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters)

"Each War of 1812 battle article has a campaign box built into the article, which provides internal wiki-links for battles of the campaigns. The last thing we need is to have numerous mini-categories. If you're interested in Canadian conflicts see List of conflicts in Canada this list is strong enough. In addition, it seems that "User:Mike McGregor (Can)" is the only one involved in the project he created. SirIsaacBrock 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"

a cute attempt to discredit someone you dont agree with... right up there with acussing people of being part of the Klan and accusing them of being vandles.

The purpose of this category is to make navigation easier for any one who may not be as knowlagable as you are in military history (specifcly the war of 1812). The link you provided (as well as Category:Conflicts in Canada) also seems to omit battles that happened on the American side of the present border which have historical segnificance to Canada, as parts of wider campaings which did cross over into presentday Canada. Making the distinction between battles which happened inside canada and battles outside canada is somewaht baffiling when you consider that Canadian Military History pre-dates the boarders of Canada. As for me being the only member of the Canadian Military Task Force, It's a brand new project, give it some time (that, and I'm clearly not the only member, there's 2 of us). feel free to come over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and take a look at the discussions around this. regarding the campaign boxes, you can't use them to navigate the subject if you can't find the right campaign. Just a note, If this page is deleated, many of these articles will need to be put back into category:Battles of Canada and category:Conflicts in Canada.

from looking up at your talk page, it looks as if your making all sorts of friends here on wiki with your edits...Mike McGregor (Can) 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the category wasen't only to catch battles within "Canada" but also to catch battles that occured outside the boarders of Canada that have segnificance in the context of a wider campaign that crossed into the Canada, contribute to the context of events within canada, contrubute to subsiquent events in Canada or are partially the result of events in Canada. The reason for this is that Canadian Military history During the War of 1812 reaches beyond the present boarders of Canada and is influenced by events in the present American North East during Colonial times and during the American expantion over the Applacians and into the Ohio Valley and into Michigan and Illinois Country. So bassicly, I feel that a Category to capture battles in Canada, as well as in the United States, from Maine to Illinois is nessisary And not redundent. So, I don't feel that Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Canada is an accectable substitute. Also, I don't beleave Category:battles of the war of 1812 will suffice, because I purpously ommited battles along the Eastern seaboard (d.c, Chesapeak, etc,) and battles in the South because they have less segnificance to Canadian Military History. perhaps somthing along the lines of category:Battles on the Great Lakes and U.S.-Canadian border reagions would be more appropreat? The reason I don't feel category:Battles of Canada or category:Conflicts in Canada don't suffice is that they simply group these battles in with battles from other conflicts, which makes navigation more difficult for anyone less knowlagable in history who is looking for info on the war of 1812. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts

Could you please check all edits in an article before reverting wholesale? Other people make edits and corrections in the meantime. So, for example, could you be so kind as to fix the spelling, links, punctuation, and word removal that you reverted in Argentine DOgo? You've done this before, too, which is why I bother to mention it. Thanks. Elf | Talk 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub format

Unless I hear something new from people outside the project, I think we'll stick with image + regular stub text for now. Given that a number of people have commented that they consider the WikiProject link inappropriate, I think it would be best to leave it out for the time being, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary conflict. Hope that helps! —Kirill Lok s hin 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation in Canada

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I have responded there. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided some further comments for your consideration. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consumption tax" is a term that people in the tax biz use. I think that "sales tax" is the more common term, and therefore more appropriate for Wikipedia. On what basis do you say that the GST is not a sales tax? I ask you to consider the following points:

The HST is called the "Harmonized Sales Tax" in three provinces.
Michael Wilson's 1987 White Paper on Tax Reform proposed a value-added tax as one of the options for "multi-stage sales tax".
The part of the Department of FInance that deals with the GST is the "Sales Tax Division of the Tax Policy Branch".
The Wikipedia article on Consumption tax, which admittedly is not very good, says: "A Consumption tax is a tax on the purchase of a good or service. Usually a consumption tax is no different than a sales tax."
The Wikipedia article on Sales taxes in Canada includes a discussion on the GST and the HST.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have provided no evidence for your position, and have provided only an ad hominem attack as your "last word", I asssume that you are not interested in pursuing the matter futher, and have changed the heading back to "Sales tax". I have posted the discussion on Talk:Taxation in Canada so that others may comment if they wish. I recommend that you review the article on WP:Wikiquette. Ground Zero | t 12:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why do you hate level 3 headers so much?

Were you bitten by one when you were younger?--152.163.101.9 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mr. Treason

OK, obviously the user who is making the edits isn't acting properly. I just wanted to make sure he was dealt with properly. I know you're acting with good intentions. Thanks for your good work.--Bkwillwm 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian military history task force

He's not the sole member, but that's really beside the point ;-)

Might you be interested in participating in the task force? I suspect many of these category schemes are simply coming out of not having anyone to discuss things with before implementing them. —Kirill Lok s hin 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually crack down on things in the project (certainly we've had little need to do that so far); I would prefer that everything be resolved somewhat more politely, if possible.

As far as what you could do: the task force in question has just been started recently. The two most important things, in my opinion, would be (1) recruiting some editors with knowledge and interest in the area, which can include either the War of 1812 in isoloation or Canadian military history as a whole (I assume that your primary interest is in the Canadian aspects of the war; hopefully I'm not too far off the mark here), and (2) going over the relevant categories and campaignbox templates and deciding what changes, if any, need to be made. I suspect that they are in fairly good shape; but it would be nice to have more people comment on them, since that would reduce any desire to introduce new ones.

Beyond that, feel free to do whatever you feel best (within reason). I've found that simply putting together a concrete plan or list of things to be done can work wonders. —Kirill Lok s hin 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada Campaign (American Revolution)

Please restore these articles and go through the regular CfD process before unilaterally empting categories. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts to Arnold expedition and Invasion of Canada (1775) have been undone. simply replacing the category tags would have sufficed. If you remove the merge tags again, please atleast have the courtesy to explain why on the discussion page of the articles. I don't quite understand why you seem to have such a problem with my contabutions to wikipedia. Also, I am not the only member of the Canadian Military History Project. This has been brought to your attention before. If you still feel the need to trackdown and revert my edits, please do me the courtesy of notifying me on my talk page. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger-baiting in the badger article

Hi there. I noticed your changes to the description of badger-baiting in the Badger article. Whilst the original description could have done with some detail explaining which region and period it was discussing (given the range of the badger), it seemed to be reasonably in line with what I understand about the practice in the UK, at least. Rather than adding to it, you have deleted it, and the description you have inserted instead is completely new to me. Is this something which occurs in specific countries/areas of a country, or is it common across the badger's range? The new information begins in the past tense and continues into the present. Which period does this cover? Was there something wrong with the original description you deleted, or was that oversight? Most importantly, could you provide some verifiable references for what you've added? I am trying to get the badger articles correctly referenced (see the Talk:Badger page for evidence of this), and seeing something I was in the process of verifying disappear in favour of something I have never heard of without any indication of country, legality and so on is a bit disconcerting. Thanks. --Telsa (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear (band)

Too short is not a criterion for speedy deletion. -- RHaworth 03:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bombing of Prague/Dresden

could you tell me, why you deleted the text about bombing of Prague (during the bombing of Dresden)? szalas 11:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Avens

The more usual common name for Geum macrophyllum (the article you originally created) is Largeleaf or Large-leaved Avens; Yellow Avens is usually applied to Geum aleppicum (see for instance the PLANTS database). I moved your article over, then deleted the redirect at Yellow Avens and replaced it with a stub on G. aleppicum. Choess 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign comments

Please try to remember to sign all comments and votes. Unsigned votes will not be taken into consideration at Categories for deletion, so if you would like your opinion to be taken into account, please go back and sign your recent vote.--Mais oui! 12:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Canada

Hi SirIsaacBrock - this category isn't really relevant to oak or maple, as only a very few species in either genus occurs in Canada; if it is to be added, it should only be added to the individual species native in Canada (see Trees of Canada for a list of trees) - MPF 13:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to Sugar Maple, Black Maple, Red Maple, Silver Maple, Bigleaf Maple, Vine Maple, Mountain Maple, Striped Maple, Manitoba Maple (and Rocky Mountain Maple, when someone gets round to doing a page for it). - MPF 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be better to add a subcategory for trees only if you want to get that species specific" - potentially tricky, given the amorphous definition of 'tree'. It may be better to break down by botanical classification? The Canadian flora runs to several thousand species in total, of which maybe 10% or less have individual wiki pages at the moment. A fair few people have tried to make "Category:Flora of Xyz"-type categories, and none of them have been very successful due to the inherent difficulties; either they end up gigantic, or else a bit of a mess. I've not been able to think of a suitable answer, so generally don't use them at all myself - MPF 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine plants / flora

If you want to move a category (I'm thinking in particular of Category:Alpine plants), the correct procedure is given here. You will want to use the {{cfr}} template, and it should be placed on the talk page. I've no objection to the move, but it should be advertised correctly. --Stemonitis 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing missing now: the subpage at Categories for Deletion: step III in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Howto. Without that extra step, no-one will know that there's a debate to be had, and no-one will rename the category afterwards. --Stemonitis 13:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrotanella

Hi SirIsaacBrock, moving Abrotanella to Cat:Flora of Antartica is not totally correct, since que Antartic Flora corresponds to floristic kingdom wich emconpasses Chile and Argentina territories. Abrotanella is not restrict to antartic continent, therefore I used Cat:Antartic Flora. Thanks. Berton 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Floristic province, Antarctic Kingdom. Thanks.Berton 17:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not zoologist, but I think that cat:Flora of Antartica is also correct. Berton 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that wrote those. Berton 18:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this idea, we have two categories Category:Antarctic flora and place it in the category Category:Flora by region and Category:Flora of Antarctica and place it in the category Category:Flora by country sound okay to you ? I think your idea of the regional approach is important; however, laymen "like me" understand areas better by country/continent. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is perfect, but I prefer Category:Antarctic Flora to not confusing with book or other work that describes the plant species occurring in a particular area or region. Berton 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a +cat called Category:Arctic flora do you feel this is the appropriate name for this +cat ? The Arctic has to be classified as a region as it is not a Continent or Country. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that is good. Berton 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dall sheep and Arctic

Dear Sir Isaac, Actually, in reponse to your question on my talk page, no, most of the Yukon and Alaska are not in the Arctic but in the Subarctic, except for a strip along their Arctic Ocean coast. See the beginning of the Arctic article for a definition (i.e either north of the Arctic Circle, north of the 10-degree isotherm or north of the tree line) and a map. Dall sheep live considerably south of that in mountainous regions adjacent to the boreal forest. Other than this minor point, good work on the categorization stuff. Luigizanasi 01:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Game Hunter

I don't see any source that supports the all-capital usage, other than the video game. Check out this LA Times article. It should be decapitalized.--Mike Selinker 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baiting

I see you've been a contributor to a lot of articles about baiting. Please understand, then, that I don't appreciate being baited myself. A sentence like "stop acting foolish" is just about the most unhelpful thing you can do on Wikipedia. In fact, it's the kind of thing that gets you banned. So, y'know, don't do it. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île aux Noix

Enjoyed the article. Thanks for the contribution! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

On the Dogo Argentino you edited for incorrect external link format ... I got that format from another dog breed and thought it was a bit more organizational and easier to distinguish the various links instead of looking at a hodgepodge of them. -Elizabeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.172.102 (talk • contribs)

Like I said, it was already in use. You may not like it, but for the average user, i.e. me, it's better. The whole point is to make it easy, quick, and to provide links to other related sites for educational purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.172.102 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be an educational site, is it not? I thought the external links to the breed articles were for further information to help educate the public. if so, why the edits and removal of educational material? If Wikipedia is going to surpress education then I will no longer use it for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.172.102 (talk • contribs)

There is a standard format for the external link section here. As long as your link formating adheres to this you'll be fine.

Monkeyman^(talk) 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dogo Argentino article does not require four subheader for six links under the External Links sections. For that few in number it require zero subheaders. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately we've got nothing written down in WP policy so we wind up with confusion like this.

Monkeyman^(talk) 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elf where are you??: Hey, sometimes I sleep, too, and, like, have a social life, and, like, go do stuff with my dogs. :-) Thanks for trying to deal with it. I left in links in many breed articles that seem to be informative about the breed; as I understand it, WP's goal is to provide info about the "what" of an article title--e.g., "what is an argentine dogo?"--not where to get one, nor where to chit chat about one, nor where to buy stuff related to one, nor cute fan sites about them, etc. So you were on the right track. Elf | Talk 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Thanks for putting up the speedy delete template, with no edit summary and blanking it really did look like vandalism. You might want to use edit summaries in the future though, they really help out RC patrollers :) -- Tawker 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will let you delete this time ...Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't delete, someone will look at soon I'm sure though -- Tawker 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking isn't deleting, can you leave it up until an admin has a look at it, thanks! Tawker 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One edit to a talk page doesn't count as consensus, can you leave it a while until other editors have a chance to reply -- Tawker 00:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is not a big deal it does not matter if a user is an admin or not, on Wikipedia every editor is equal, I'm not "monkeying" around with the article. I'm positive you're acting in good faith but the fact remains that after 1 request on a talk page less than 24 hours ago, you are considering that consensus for blanking and or deletion of an article. Wikipedia procedure allows for time for comments and reply, if we didn't we would have edit wars going on constantly which isn't good. Can you give it a few days and if nobody has any objections, then we can consider it for deletion. Thanks -- Tawker 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Template:Antarctic expeditions sidebar

Because others besides yourself have edited the template, it does not qualify for speedy deletion. If you would like it to be deleted, please follow the directions on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please add {tfd}} to the template. It is specifically designed to show up on every page so others may comment on your proposed deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To whoever it may concern) I've recently delisted the TALK page of Template talk:Antarctic expeditions sidebar from CSD, as a talk page for an existing template, possibly potions of a deletion discussion. This in no way endoreses that the Template itself should or should not be included in the encyclopedia. The template is currently in use in articles, and it's deletion could be disrubtive at this time. I don't see that this template has ever gone through a deletion review, but anyone is free to list it on TFD at anytime they have a good faith reason for it's nomination. The template itself does not seem to qualify for speedy deletion either, and I would delist it as well in it's current state. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for my "blank it if you wish" comment, although not popular, archive to history is an allowed talk page archiving protocol. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me...

I found that external link format on a dog article and I liked it. i said to myself, "So why aren't they all like to make it easier to sort through the links to better find what a person wants, i.e. club, registry, pedigree database, etc..." I thought I was doing something GOOD and making ite asier for a lot more people. Like that was a crime? Geez.

BC redirect

Any specific reason you removed the redirect from Before Christ? Now we have a stub there, which says significantly less than the second paragraph from Anno Domini, to which it was redirecting? dewet|™ 19:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you at Talk:Before Christ. dewet|™ 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reply on Talk:Before Christ? The article as it is seriously lacks reason for existence. dewet|™ 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so that you can

File:AHmedalbook.jpg

page from Medallic Portraits of Adolf Hitler

fix it and get an easy edit. Carptrash 16:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Though, i was surprised that you removed that book, which seemed to me to be one that belonged in that list. If you feel bored, i have entered probably several hundred book from my library into lots of articles, and they probably ALL are done WRONG too. Getting them all out might be a great way to spend a day if you re snowed in like I am.[reply]

But there is no reason for us to squabble like small children. Since you are the one who decides what goes in this bibliography, here are a couple pages to allow you to at least make an informed decision. Carptrash 16:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica

Hello, why did u revert my edit ? SirIsaacBrock 10:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a link to an e-store, clearly violating WP:SPAM. --Rory0 96 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of a commercial link to an online store section of an website would be considered linkspam, I've changed it to the information section but that one is very greyline on inclusion. We don't put links to commercial stores on Wikipedia unless the article is about the store (Amazon, eBay etc) otherwise many people would try and take advantage of Wikipedia's high reputation with Google for pagerank. Thanks! Tawker 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your request for assistance in writing an RFA

Hi SirIsaacBrock. I saw your request for assistance in writing an RfA on WP:RFA. While you do have 2000+ edits and have been here for more than 3 months, I personally cannot in good conscience assist you. That doesn't mean I won't offer advice, or that another admin wouldn't assist you in writing an RFA. I am just concerned that you might have a rough time of it if you went up for RFA at the moment. Your edit summary usage is below 25% for both major and minor edits in the past 150 edits (per Mathbot), and it looks like you've had some friction here on your talk page. While neither of those is nessecarily damning I can see it being a thorn that would garner a lot of oppose votes. I would be at best neutral in the discussion because of the edit summaries, myself.

I haven't dug deeper into your contributions, but something you might consider is taking advantage of Admin Coaching at Wikiproject:Esperanza here. Also feel free to take these comments with a grain of salt. I don't mean to hurt you or discourage you, but sometimes a failed RfA can be a pretty brutal thing and if a couple months and some coaching could turn that to a successful RfA then that might be worth a consideration. --Syrthiss 15:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can start to set up the page for you... but you'll have to make a statement at the top as to why you feel you should be considered to be an admin, and answer some questions at the bottom. I'll give you a heads up when the page has been created. Sorry for the late response, I tend to only be on wiki in the mornings and afternoons east-coast-USA time. --Syrthiss 12:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SirIsaacBrock. Lemme know when you are done and I'll link it in, or you can do it yourself by putting "{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SirIsaacBrock}} ----" (everything between the quotes) on the WP:RFA page in the proper place. --Syrthiss 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I am not butting in here, but if you want to properly do this RfA, you should answer the questions here instead of on your Nomination Cabal page. You can pretty much ignore the Nomination Cabal page from here on out. When you are done answering the initial questions on your RfA page, you should then put {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SirIsaacBrock}} ---- on the main RfA page. I would recommend adding Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SirIsaacBrock to your watch list so that you will see when people have additional questions for you to answer. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. I can't put it up until you have answered the questions on the page we've linked, and accepted the nomination. --Syrthiss 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA comments

Thanks for asking my opinion. I think that you need more experience with wikipedia and a deeper understanding of its policies and conventions before you're ready for adminship, such as the not-to-long ago discussion about semiprotecting the dog article (discussion and against-policy application), and such as the not-too-long-ago lack of experience with external link formatting (discussion). You've certainly learned and improved over the time you've been editing articles on my watchlist, but another couple of months at least would be helpful, IMHO. Also, your responses to edits sometimes come across as prickly, which could be a challenge for an admin, although you do listen to explanations and seem interested in working as part of a team. Keep working on it, keep learning. Elf | Talk 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Spammer

Back to the real reason for responding here. I thought that I would let you know, I had reported the bulldog spammer and all of his alts on the long term abuse page. If you see him spreading his links again, you might want to make a comment here.

Also, while it might have been a good faith effort to consolidate this guys info into an internal article, this organization does not meet the criterion set forth for notability as defined in WP:CORP. The name of the org only has 207 google hits and As it stands, the web site seems to only be a tool to promote the sales of this groups own dogs, and it appears to only have four members and is associated with four kennels - it doesn't sound like it's a real registry at all. .

So, I'm going to nominate this one for deletion, and we should just watch out for this guy coming back trying to sell his dogs,

Thanks - Trysha ^(talk) 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing.

Since you want to go through this RfA process - maybe you do not know, but your account is listed as a sockpuppet of User:WritersCramp on the writerscramp request for comment. One user has said that they know for sure you are the same person as writers cramp, [2] you should probably make some effort to confirm or deny this in advance, as this question will undoubtedly be raised during the rfa process (someone will probably run checkuser against these accounts). - Trysha ^(talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog ancestry

You asked:

Opinion request: I notice the dog article has a section on the ancestory of the dog as a wolf. Do you feel it might be time to create a separate article Origins of the dog or of similiar title? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask article-specific questions is on that article's talk page. I'll respond there. Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]