User talk:Tony Fox/archive2

How do you know about Columbia River

You live in Canada and yet you pretty much created the entry on Columbia River High School. How'd you find about about River? Just curious

Hey there. I found it by spotting some vandalism while doing recent changes patrol. I didn't create it, I just cleaned it up and worked on it to ensure it falls under the guidelines for pages here. Since then, I've been watching it for vandalism and clearing that up when it happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

The previous version is sourced and was the result of long discussions, including an ArbCom. The new version violates WP:AUTO, contains serious errors and exagerations. I suggest you actually compare the versions. 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you

Cheers tony. Ill leave it their for the time being. If he continues then ill post it on the admins board like you said. I only wanted him to be warned like you did > so thank you <. P.s sorry i forgot to sign my post. Alec1990 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"arf"?

Lol, you stole my sig idea. COWS ARE BETTER! -Amarkov moo! 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DeVry talk page

Thanks for the CheckUser tip, it turns out that ElKevbo is already on it! Vagary 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User RFC filing attempt

Sorry, but it's as clear as mud to me, and the pages, both those you linked and the "regular" pages aren't very "user friendly" for those users that aren't expert in Wiki-talk. To be honest, I'm not bothering to follo up the complaint - the other user that's had a problem with this person seems to have disappeared, so I don't have a 2nd person to file the complaint, so I'm just going to have to follow him around Wiki reverting his edits were necessary. Darkson - BANG! 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Last Warning by Codeplowed

Haha. I filed another sockpuppet report, might as well get on top of things. :) Vagary 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gianna Distenca AFD

Thanks for your help. I'm still kinda new at this deletion stuff. When I first read WP:DELETE, I was confused in a way. I think I get it now: just make a new article and title it alongside "Articles for Deletion/{{PAGENAME}}", correct? ~I'm anonymous

Thanks for everything. Cheers! ~I'm anonymous

Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled...

Hi

Please look at the edits on the page and let me know of any fixing suggestions you have.

Thanks

JLMarais 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little People, Big Mouths

Why did you remove my additions to the Little People Big World article? They made the whole thing so much more entertaining! Martin Castillo 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Lt.[reply]

If you want to make articles "more entertaining," I would suggest a different site. Here, you're just trolling. -- Kesh 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

You might also want to check out this afd. GreenJoe 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, something for you to look at...

Dunno if this qualifies as inappropriate use of friendship with an admin or not, but could I get you to look at cat body language? We've got an anon who went through and wikilinked damn near every noun, verb, and adjective in there with the edit summary "Needs moar wikilinks"; when I reverted to eliminate the unneeded ones, he proceeded to revert it himself to "rv vandalism by Rdfox." I don't want to get involved in an edit war when I'm not gonna be around to defend myself, so I was thinking maybe you could step in and decide what should and shouldn't be wikilinked in there? Rdfox 76 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be inappropriate, as I'm not an admin. =) I did weigh in, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A-class review result

The basic reason was the fact that, as far as I could tell, Kevin's concerns about the lack of scholarly sourcing are still outstanding. He has a great deal of experience on such topics, and the objection is per se a fairly substantial one, so I considered it best not to promote the article at this point.

(Given that each review lasts for only four days, it's much simpler, in the case of a contested nomination with substantial discussion, to simply close the review without passing the article and allow its editors to relist it once all the issues have been dealt with. To a certain extent, it may be that "failed" is not the best term to use here; the better explanation would be "did not obviously and uncontroversially pass".) Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... and how did you do that?

Seconds after I posted on the Village Pump a bit of head-scratching about what appeared to be Monkeyboy98's bit of vandalism on the Ancient Egypt article, you removed it. I couldn't figure out where the "fucking shit on cow" verbiage had been stuck in the article, so I couldn't remove it. How did you find it? Where was it? Xenophon777 04:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arf" and so forth

Cute sig idea. I've been meaning to copy it myself, but I can't figure out exactly what sound otters make. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request.

Hello,

How did the "michael hardinger" issue work out? You offered to clean up the article, and I wanted to see if the EAR issue is resolved. --Aarktica 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV Request

Thank you for making a report about 202.79.30.2 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Suspect wrong user reported. Only one message on talk page for 202.79.30.2, and at least some legit edits -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this message bothered you. As you probably know, templates allow us to communicate quickly, which is helpful when dealing with vandals. If I block the user, the person reporting can see the results from the block log or the vandal's talk page, but if for some reason I decide not to block, I try to notify the person reporting why the user wasn't blocked. The longer I spend telling somebody who reports the result of my analysis, the longer it will be before I can return to WP:AIV and block the next vandal.

Actually, there is a personal note included in the above template at the end of the message. Since you have been dealing with vandals for a while, you are no doubt aware of the restrictions placed on blocking. In this case, since the person has a dynamic IP, it is (IMHO) hard to justify blocking a specific IP address unless there is an actual history of vandalism, especially since it might result in a block for innocent editors who happen to get a blocked IP address. If they keep using a different IP address, then it makes it a lot harder to limit damage. Although I try to take time to analyze the edit patterns about the alleged vandal, I don't have the background that the person reporting might have. That is why I report back for every blocking request that I turn down. Sometimes they come back and provide more information that may result in a block, but other times they learn more about the blocking policy and are more careful in the future.

Hopefully you realize that we are both on the same side of fighting vandals. Thanks for all your efforts in helping to improve Wikipedia! -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Warnings

Just sending this to apologise for the warning I gave that vandal. Got a bit carried away eh? I'll try to be a bit more polite next time - although the last thing he/she/it deserves is courtesy. Zain Ebrahim 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxxury Article

Yeah, I'm sorry about how promotional the article came across. I couldn't come up with a good description, so I just cut-and-paste. I will do a description in the next few days, when I have some time.

Kudos to the Wikipedia team!

One of the joys of my life over the past few years has been (1) the ability of Wikipedia to provide information I find useful and perhaps necessary and (2) the ability of google to like quickly to the appropriate Wikipedia page to provide that information. THANK YOU team! I assume that includes Tony Fox.

What a grand idea! Kudos to Al Gore also for promoting the use and support of the internet! NEVER ALLOW IT TO BE TAKEN OVER BY "THE INTERESTS"! We, the people of the world, are the rightful users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffwiki (talk • contribs) 18:05, May 31, 2007

I have no idea what this is about, but hey, I'll take a pat on the back any day. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all the help with Wikipedia. I'm kind of new, even though I had been using an IP adress for a while.

Zaglith 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support is a thing I'm very grateful for. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me SirFozzie 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book World

Since this AfD has been closed, would you please remove the deletion tag from the article (as the closer)? Corvus cornix 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob, figured as much. :) Cheers. Corvus cornix 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Schanze

Tony Fox,

Dell Schanze has edited his blog once again, this time making a threat to the Wikipedia in regards to wikipedia Entry. You can review it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dell_Schanze&diff=138708690&oldid=131747087

The ip address is guranteed to be Dell Schanze himself, as reviewing his other Edits will clearly detail. I highly recommend this issue be escalated, but I'm not sure how threats against the wikipedia organization are dealt with (Via ban or other means). Please review if you'd like. I apologize if this is not the appropriate method for escalation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.65.1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, June 18, 2007

I know this isn't the easiest way to tell you...

...but I thought it'd be the best way to get in touch with you when you're out of town.

Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their son Daniel were found dead in their Atlanta home today.

Police are investigating, but have revealed only that they weren't shot. Rdfox 76 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeowner associations

Tony,

As a new user, I may have a few things to learn with respect to Wiki style. However, rather than wholesale eradication of someone else's contributions, it might have been preferable to invite the contributor to "clean up" the contribution within some particular timeframe and reasonable requirements as to support. The current state of the article on homeowner associations is abysmal and already reflects an improper bias. The article also makes numerous representations such as the homeowners signing a rider - which might be true in one state, but is quite false as a generalized statement.

As a practicing patent attorney, I was happily minding my own business until Community Association Institute invaded our association and engaged in the very tactics I described. You know, when I'm referencing Supreme Court cases with links to the Supreme Court of states like North Carolina, I have a hard time understanding why you would find that to be unsupported or to not meet your threshold of acceptable, reliable source material. I can certainly substantiate the rest of the statements made, the question is how many sources and what volume of information would you consider to meet your threshhold of reliable source material?

There are significant court cases taking place all over the United States focusing on CAI policies of disenfranchising voters, embezzlement, the priority of payment scam, refusal to allow members to inspect books & records, etc. How many court cases would you consider to meet your minimum threshold of support? How many embezzlement convictions and at what dollar amount would you agree was significant enough to warrant statements such as the ones I made regarding embezzlement. It's a fact regardless of whether you consider it to be "negative".

Would you like specific references to Community Associations Institute's own public policies? How many examples of the Priority of Payment scam would you like to see? It is so rampant in the state of Texas that homeowners are losing homes by the thousands. Do you want 10, 20, 30, 100 copies of these "resolutions regarding priority of payment" that CAI management companies promulgate for the associations they "manage"? 13 states have adopted laws to prohibit it (by Community Association Institute's own public policy publications). Should I attach a copy of their public policies? Would that be problematic from a copyright standpoint? Should I provide a link (which they could always change)? Why do you want to protect this organization? You are presenting them as a neutral entity when they prey upon homeowners everywhere.

With respect to the monopoly issues, what would you like to see? Should you be referred to CAI's public policies regarding monopolies in telecommunications? Would you like a copy of the 75-year term that the developer imposed on members of an association that even the FCC raised eyebrows at? Do you understand that the FCC OTARD rulings recognized that these developers implemented restrictions against satellite dishes in order to preserve a monopoly for cable providers that were paying developers to implement these restrictions? CAI is the entity that argues for the monopolies - check the OTARD rulings yourself or I could list them. CAI never represents the homeowners in association issues. Never. CAI always represents foreclosure attorneys, management companies, and vendors (e.g., cable, landscaping, etc).

Would you like, or should I post copies of 15-20 CCRs just in the Central Texas region alone that create economically unregulated monopolies over propane for these subdivisions and provide that the developer will share in the revenue in perpetuity? Would that suffice as a trend? Are you offended by the term "kickback"? Is there a more appropriate term to use that you feel would be neutral ? Would you be satisfied with a listing of the documents as recorded with document, volume, and page number as recorded? Do I need to provide copies of 60-120 page documents as recorded with the county clerk's office?

The current definition of HOAs is poor at best. If you won't let people fix it, then please consider deleting it. This is a real disservice to claim that the current definition in any way provides a picture of the risks individuals take when purchasing in a mandatory homeowners association. Even the initial sentences are false since buyers often are not informed at the time of purchase and may not even see a copy of the CCRs when they purchase. Many purchasers are not aware that CCRs can be imposed AFTER they buy their house and without their input, vote, or permission. This is frequently the case in neighborhood that is still under developer control. The developer can unilaterally file or amend the CCRs without any homeowner approval.

One of the worst new trends that CAI is promoting is the imposition of a transfer fee. Homeowners buy a home. The developer subsequently imposes a "transfer fee" of some % value of the home without the homeowners permission. Then for each successive sale of the home, the then-owner is obligated to pay a developer-controlled entity some % of the value of their home. Typically this is under the pretext of environmental causes or "good for the community". The reality is that the homeowners have no idea where the money goes and there is no obligation on the entity paid to actually live up to its represented purpose. They can pay out every dime of transfer fees to the 'administration' of the entity as salaries. This is happening in California as well as Texas (Sienna Plantation, Missouri City). Can you imagine being told you have to pay a percentage of the sales price of your home to some private third party that you never consented to? You are either an industry plant or you have insufficient knowledge of this subject matter with which to guide your edits. Apparently if you don't like truthful statements, they are deemed "negative" and undeserving of being addressed.

You are not "editing" you are censoring to ensure the proliferation of false information. You may interpret my statements as "negative", but if they are truthful and can be substantiated by adequate source material then why shouldn't my statements be considered on equal par with anyone else's? After reading some other individual's comments about your edits, I'm a little concerned about how "neutral" your position is on this matter. I will strive to meet whatever "source" standard you believe is appropriate, however, you need to be reasonable in your requests. Your current definition of homeowners association is beyond abysmal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdavis921 (talk • contribs) 22:42, July 1, 2007

Thanks for the message

Many thanks for the welcome message with the rules etc. I am fascinated by this free medium, but there are quite a few rules, etiquette etc. that have to be followed that it seems you have to learn largely via trial and error! It intrigues me that different individuals with different editorial styles way in and change items requiring quite a lot of patrolling of sites one has contributed to on issues of scientific fact. Interesting.

Thanks again.

Profberger 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. how does one get the signpost "considering deletion" removed from ones page after a trial? Its still there?

Profberger 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anberlin mediation

In response to your question, the idea of formal mediation (in the MedCom sense) is that it is closed - i.e. that the issues are resolved between the parties while keeping out outside comment. I have no problem with addition parties in this particular dispute but I think anyone now wishing to express an opinion really needs to add themselves as a party. It appears that the conclusion is going to be to add "Christian rock (see below)" to the entry the genre section, linking the reader to the passage about the dispute. If that seems an acceptable outcome to you I suggest you sit this out and let the mediation close. If you don't think that's a good outcome you should consider taking joining the mediation as a party. WjBscribe 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From this AfD

Oh noes, it does really look like a big ol' hoax! Thanks for checking up on it. If the picture on Jeopardy Theory's page is the band Anberlin, why not post a comment on the pic itself, which is up for deletion here. Eliz81 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Awesome. Way to go! :) Eliz81 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from RVDDP2501 re: Extinctioners article

Hey man, its been a while, how's it going, I see the Extinctioner's page came close again to being deleted but it was kept, man, I'm so relieved, what do you think are the odds that a third debate will happen? - RVDDP2501 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think someone named SilverWerewolf tried to "clone" the wikifur page over here which is basically what got people angry, hopefully he or someone else will not attempt the same thing, ok then, oh btw, pardon my asking, are you a fan of Extinctioners? - RVDDP2501 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, just felt like asking :P - RVDDP2501 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent message at User talk:121.209.162.193

Warning: Frequently changing IP address

User talk: 121.209.162.193 is the discussion page for a numerical IP address, not a unique user. The allocation of this IP address to a particular user changes very frequently. In any 24 hour period, many users who are not related and who do not know each other could have this IP address allocated to them. Your recent message to this discussion page has been received by a user other than the one with whom you apparently intended to communicate. Specifically, you referred to edits to Wikipedia which the user who received your message did not make. Please don't place messages for a specific Wikipedia user, or concerning the edits of a specific user, on this page. It is more likely than not that they will be received by the wrong person, causing embarrassment and confusion for you and for them. This notice is unsigned intentionally. If you don't know why, please re-read it from the beginning.

Please refer this message to User:Miremare - I think you guys have got the wrong person here. I don't even think I know what a badger is.

That's all fine and good - but there are 254 * 254 IPs in this subscriber block - I have never had the same one twice, but this isn't the first time I have gotten someone else's warnings. Since they are stale and somewhat offensive, I prefer to get rid of them as a courtesy to the next user of the IP.

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, it's much appreciated. Trusilver 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Question

Judging by your comment on the talk page for User:Dormeezy I assume that if I tag a page with csd or something to that effect I need/should leave a message explaining the reason for the deletion tag. Is that a correct assumption? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am a little new to the csd/afd thing, so I am learning this as I go along. I apreciate the pointer, I will try and remember to do that from now on. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I get that I am extremely new to this whole process and am trying to learn. However I hit the save button far before I wanted to and this was when it became tagged. I was actually going to state that this was more to the effect of a summery and glossary for the characters and such that would exist in the story. I have no desire to promote the fiction nor have I written it myself; I was never going to include any link to said fanfiction (Day Be Elk 05:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I'm probably going to blank out the page and work on it in a word program before I actually bring it to life this time. Sorry again for the bad post. And I also understand that being fan fiction should normally mean it dosn't have literary merit. (Day Be Elk 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

('arf!)

This comment has been placed purely because i found the above humorous. Well done! =) --SteelersFan UK06 06:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

220.239.56.240

I see you've had to warn this IP recently

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

I've noted their behaviour seems almost identical to another IP

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

also operating at the moment — the same nosense about Herostratus, similar petty vandalism and tinkering with warning notices. Reckon it's the same person? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, I've been watching the Herostratus article for a while now, and on a couple of occasions, someone with the same MO turns up to mess with it. That, plus Google, has revealed a further three IPs prior to this

220.239.184.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
211.30.39.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
220.237.22.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

But this is the first time I've seen two operating at the same time, which suggests something more focused than a shifting IP address. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

... I didn't know I'd installed a bridge over my talk page, but the trolls have certainly been popping up. Thanks to everyone who reverted that IP today. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you do a lot of welcomes

I was wondering if I could get your help, if this is the case. I saw that you're a Twinkle user also, by the way. I've been working on a set of scripts based on Twinkle's morebits.js library that provide friendlier, more collaborative functions than Twinkle's maintenance and vandalism oriented ones. It's called Friendly, and currently I've implemented the part that lets you do welcomes in a Twinkle-ish fashion. I'd love it if you could give it a try and tell me what you think. Thanks! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do!

(Barnstar relocated)

I'll give a thumbs up to this too. Nicely done! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly install

Thanks for the quick heads-up. Looks like the bug was with capitalization of the template names. The other problem was a simple variable name mismatch. Both issues should be fixed now. If you still have it installed, just do a cache clearing refresh. Thanks again! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliment! I had been wishing the exact same thing, so I just decided to write one. I'm hoping to expand this script in the future to include the welcome template options for the appropriate templates, but for now at least it's a start. I was also thinking of creating a script for mainspace tags ({{cleanup}} and the like) but it will probably be a couple of weeks before I get to it. Anyways, thanks for helping with the script, and just let me know if you run into anything else! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee

I hope you don't think I was taking your comment personally -- I sometimes like tongue-in-cheek humor, especially on days when I've been on active vandal duty. :) -- Merope 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moped

You know, I didn't realize I was reverting to a page with vandalism still on it. Thanks for pointing that out, and I'll be sure and watch out for that again. As for getting the anon bagged, I think if you look at my record, I must get at least 5 or 6 bagged a night. Anyways, happy editing! Carter | Talk to me 06:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the reply, but to be honest, you're wrong. I'm the one staying cool. He's calling me a psycho and insulting me and I'm simply doing my job, therefore remaining cool. But thanks for the concern. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your polite msg and thanks for being fair and warning him too as he started it. I also hope that you warn him of getting blocked too if he kept harassing me. Anyway, you seem to be someone who i can deal with, so i wanna ask you, is what i have written considered to be personal opinions? i have the reference. I even can link a video reference showing the whole incident. I was just threading real facts. So why are there many objections!!? And if editors are free to edit in any article as you said, how come i cannot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomJBlane (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious, the lengths this guy is going to to try to place the blame on me. He obviously does not realize that the whole screwjob at No Way Out was scripted and we do not need personal opinions on how it "sucked" in the article. I stayed calm and gave him a warning and he called me a psycho and said I had problems, then tried to say I started this whole thing, when in fact, he started it with the psycho comment. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First i kept laughing about what this guy was doing BUT ITS NO LONGER FUNNY. This human being keeps sending msgs although i stopped sending him, and it really "sucks". You can go to my talk page and see what he is saying and how he keeps harassing me and then acting like an angel who's being attacked by ME! SOMEBODY HELP HIM PLZZZZZZZZZ.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomJBlane (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, don't listen to this guy. I've already reported him. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.145.219.232#January_2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.219.232 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-escalating

It seems he is a single purpose account, made to try to get me blocked. Therefore, I have reported him on the ARV. He continues to attack me saying I harassed him and I'm psycho. Seeing as no-one else around here wants to take the initiative and warn him, I may as well do it myself. I try to ignore him, I asked him to stop contacting me, and he kept contacting me. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Islam

Hey thanks for responding in a very professional manner, you have certainly proven yourself to be skilled mediator and editor for Wikipedia. Just to let you know I am not actually the world's "foremost expert" on political Islam. I am actually just a vandal that wanted to cause trouble, and thought the route i took would be more clever than just blanking the page with dirty words. I am not sure if this will change anything, now that you know what my true intentions were. But anyway let your boss know you did a great job. I doubt if i will vandalize anymoe tonight, so you probably dont have to worry about that. Have a geat night in Canada!! --130.108.192.193 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I did suspect, but assuming good faith is an important tenet around here. I'm glad to hear I've done my job well, and will ask for an increase on my next performance evaluation. Please don't vandalize further, as I'll be watching for further warnings on your talk page and pointing out this comment when issues arise.

Hey, Jimbo - how'bout that raise? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Oh, well that might explain the vandalism, cause the blocked user went through a whole lot just to vandalize (i just do not get people like that). Thanks for the comment. Tiptoety 06:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R

Sir, I honestly believe my contributions to R were contructive and helpful. However, if this is not the case, please reply in my talk page with what I could do to help rather than mistakenly causing vandalism. I understand, especially with my current discussion page showing signs of apparent vandalism acusing me of vandalism. Worgan Mick 06:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletions

Image:Foxie_color.jpg Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg scroll down to see the red box, these discussions are on commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.131.233 (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your speedies recreated

Hey there. Looks like someone recreated COMBAT after you speedied it as an A7; it's even still got a PROD tag on it. Could you take a look and see if it's still speedy fodder? Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone! Thanks. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone

Hello, Can you show me where is the article "top-loaded" with trivia? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Iam waiting for it. It´s been six month since I started to write it. Cmdr and two others have made some grammar corrections,but it was not more than 7 mistakes. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I expect a reply? "Repertoire" subtitle is overly easy to cite. I don´t meanto be rude, but [[1]] you can find all her albums and all needed infos abt duets and repertoire. As for the "Talent" what do you mean? And even duets and repertoire, do you consider it trivia? Can you be more specific when you say top-loaded with trivia? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I just want to point out that I support your assertion on the Simone article, but given Margarida's/Ludovicapipa's history, I didn't want to take the initiative on editing it and her other articles so as to not aggravate the other discussions we're engaged in. I'm glad other editors are stepping in to provide a much-needed sanity check. Cheers.--Dali-Llama 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Darnton

Just wanted to let you know that your article on Byron Darnton has been uploaded to Veropedia. You can find it here. If you have any other articles you would like to recommend to us, please contact me. Thanks. Danny 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People in talk

Well, it's mostly that I see it as counterproductive - DissuadeReputation and all that good stuff. They want a name - if you deny it to them, all they have is their comments, which look rather transparent to most regular Wikipedians (in fact, they act as their own straw men, making our arguments look more valid because of their weakness). I think something worthwhile came out of it this time in terms of art proportions, so it's not time completely wasted. :-) GreenReaper 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone

As a heads-up, Margarida's back from her block.--Dali-Llama 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel

Hi Tony. Dividing an interview into two portions - the interviewer's material is independent info and the interviewee's info is not independent is a hard line approach to the "independent" reliable source material issue. However, I don't use any "importance" criteria so any ol' topic is fine with me if there is enough independent reliable source material. And when it comes to reliable sources, I've got a really low bar. We all get one !vote at DRV so I think the closer accounts for the different views of everyone and it all works out in the end. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back me up!!: This a different tone[2]; You know what it looks like? Looks like soldiers on the war: the article looks XX, but let´s hash it! Do you back me up? yes, in any case, I will use WP´s rules to justify you...Ok, good so I will start to mince...!! Ok good go ahead. When you finish I will show up and praise yr edits. It looks like a whispered message, implicit --go there and mince, hash it!! Lulu Margarida ^yes? 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thanx for looking over the Michael Jackson page of late and protecting it form vandalism. Yours Realist2 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you would consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony Fox. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Arf!

I'm pretty sure foxes don't say arf. :) Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm special. *g* Tony Fox (arf!) 07:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*gasp* Mutant. Sorry, I'll stop spamming your talk page now. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Iglesias edit

I was trying to fix vandalism on Enrique Iglesias but messed up a bit doing so. Suddenly you barge in and accuse me of vandalism. I find that very offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuljaska (talk • contribs) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help against the vandal that was vandalizing my user page. CardinalDan (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet issues

I'll know that you'll most likely check my talk page after leaving a message there, since it says that I will respond there, but here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

w00t! Congrats, Tony! -- Kesh (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Addhoc (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being a special fox! *g* Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(There was an edit conflict. I just came back.) Yes, congratulations, Tony Fox. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ! Cirt (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Congratulations as well. Cheers, Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for your successful nomination --JForget 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

w00tx500! Congratulations! --VSimonian^{([talk]-[contribs]-[email])} 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I'm glad to hear of your success. Keep up the good work. :-) Lra drama 12:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your RfA

The otters say thanks for the fish! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Nowling

The template "uw-unsourced1" seemed to only go up to level 3 in Twinkle, so I assumed that it was a final warning. My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed this user that MySpace is not a reliable source, and I've informed him/her about WP:V and WP:RS. If any reliable sources are found that list his DoB as 1960, then I might amend the article to state that his DoB is disputed. (Actually, one source does say that he celebrated his 44th birthday at a concert in 2004, but since everything else says 1959, I went with the majority -- after all, "44" in that one source could've just been a typo.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This time, the user placed the following message on my page. Lookingh at Lala.com, it doesn't look like a reliable source at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The lala.com Website Is A Third Party And The Information They Have As To Collin Raye Is Correct,Because The Article Is Correct.Keri Nowling,Seymour,Indiana."

I assume that last message was meant for Keri Nowling and not me? I'm quite familiar with WP:RS... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as she posted there, I figured I'd respond there. I know you're familiar with guidelines. =) Having said all that, though, I do have to say there seems to be a disagreement on his age depending on what websites you look at... they range all over the place. Annoying, that... Tony Fox (arf!) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what happened to Keri Nowling this time? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Hey, thanks. Tough day in the trenches... Chubbles (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on my talk page:

"Hi there. Could I please ask that you use the preview button when making a series of edits to a page rather than making a long series of small edits and saving each one every time? I've got the AFD discussion you're participating in on my watchlist, and it's bouncing to the top constantly with every edit that you make. It's usually considered a better move to use preview than multiple saves, and it makes it easier for any other editors who want to edit to do so without hitting an edit conflict. Thanks."

I just saw this; I didn't even know I had a talk page. I also didn't know that careful saving caused admins to be notified disruptively of people's various revisions -- sorry to hear that; I'll try to be more considerate. Ironically, I was making edits in order to strive for the recommendation of your second paragraph (though I hadn't read it at the time):

"I'd also suggest that you keep cool in the discussion of the Jade Raymond AFD; voluminous, argumentative comments sometimes can swing discussions away from the point of said comments. It's best to look at how best to meet the concerns raised in the delete requests, such as the need for good reliable sources to expand the article's sourcing. If you can find good sourcing to help assert notability, that would be useful. Cheers."

I've tried to address the concerns of the delete requests, and actually did add sources. I also added statistics -- please see my initial response one last time.

I wasn't aware that the length of a response was a point of contention; I'll be aware of it now. As for "keeping cool": Nearly all of my edits were made with the idea of "keeping cool" -- perhaps certain comments on the talk page gave me the sense that Raymond's entry was being attacked for reasons that had nothing to do with merit and everything to do with the blatant misogyny that has followed her all over the gaming community.

It seemed to me that people were questioning the Raymond entry's relevance for deeply sexist reasons, just as stalkers had questioned her competence and accused her of literal prostitution all over the internet: because she is encroaching on the territory of male gamers. Though it is far less perilous physically, Raymond's case seems to correspond in many ways to that of Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,[3], as both involve the entrance of a woman into a position and place of employment heretofore staked out as male territory. Both also involve stalking, abuse and sexual harassment, and, later, more insidious claims that the victim was unimportant and that certain nefarious events were not unusual or noteworthy.

Thanks for listening. If you find anything else I might do on this site to be inefficient or troublesome, then please let me know. --Sepium Gronagh (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to thank him for his conduct, Tony, or should I? :) --Kiz o r 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top-posted ... er, stuff

In two years I have posted a few articles, they were done correctly and frankly rather insignificant to begin with. Still you deleted them. Fair enough, I think your an intellectual snob and a could use a spell checking program when you post. A challenge, Tell me my member name and I will donate $1,000.00 you have a month and I will log in under my member name next time I post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.137.149 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who to the what now? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medic Droid (band)

There was a weak delete who said they couldn't determine if the band was actually listed on the iTunes chart. It was -- they were listed at Number 28. I treated this as a weak keep. The question was also asked whether the iTunes dance chart counts as a relevant national chart or should be regarded as simply a chart from a single vendor. This was debated and appeared debatable. So the matter seemed to me to be closer than you are suggesting, and I tend to err slightly in favor of keeping. A no consensus can be relisted. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foto na Dans

In November, you voted to keep the band, and said there would likely be more information in Afrikaans, I have a moderate understanding of the language, but have battled to find useful sources in that language. Can you remember if there were there any specific sites which you felt could contain relevant information. I personally think it is a very weak keep, they do get a fair deal of airplay on [MK] and campus radio, but not sure if that is enough for a foreign-language band on the English wikipedia. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you check back here, looks like your IP is dynamic... I don't speak Afrikaans, so I can't really say what would or wouldn't be a good source. I was more suggesting that someone who knows the language would be able to track something down. As you point out in your addition to the article, they are nominated for a number of awards, so I still feel they're on the good side of WP:MUSIC. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sites I checked either re-iterated what's already on the page or were fan sites filled with emotional language lauding their compositions, unique style etc. Would be a major thing if one could find a place that records South African record sales. I've yet to find one - it would be a good addition to a number of South African articles. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia

Oh my gosh, I LOVE this band! I saw the lead singer do a solo show last week! Ambulance on the way... Chubbles (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I even listened to their CD this morning. How crazy is that? Chubbles (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Arias

Thanks, I reverted to the wrong revision. BJ^Talk 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't don't interfere with me working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharissa (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dont own it either took me a bit to figure out your 'edit conflict' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharissa (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :)

I was just keeping an eye on both places because the editor kept removing the Afd tag and the discussion. :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism

As I told another user, the term "totalitarianism" is hotly contested by political scientists. It is a serious violation of NPOV and NOR for Wikipedia users to be randomly and arbitrarily inserting this tag in pages on specific regimes and individuals. The tag can go in articles that directly relate to the subject, such as totalitarianism and post-totalitarianism, books on the subject, and theorists who contributed to the concept such as Hannah Hannah Arendt. I am only removing the tag from where it does not belong. Maglev Power (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welshleprechaun

Hi Tony - this isn't the first time that WL has been involved in this type of thing, and apart from anything else he's broken 3RR on Transport in Wales AND Transport in Cardiff in the last 40 minutes alone. I think a short block is a good idea now, and I've blocked the IP editor as well. I'm happy if you want to reduce it, but I think a block of some sort is required here. Black Kite 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNYO

I am fancymustard's roommate. WNYO-FM has already been dealt with by Dorftrottel. Refer to his talk page! -UWMSports (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So unblock him, you don't have any business here! -UWMSports (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at the user's talk page saying that I'd endorse unblocking if he agrees to resolving the content issues at the article talk page with me. I think the edits happened in good faith and in utter ignorance of all our policies. User:Dorftrottel 18:45, February 5, 2008

OTOH, let him calm down first. User:Dorftrottel 18:47, February 5, 2008

HE gave you a source! He gave you what you wanted. He reverted edits made AGAINST HIM. BLOCK those others that reverted him back if you want to follow code. This is horse shit and you know it! -UWMSports (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It explains the game and that is a primary source of someone who played in the game. It is a reliable video. Check out the logos in the back then go to wnyo.org and wtop10.tv and check out how reliable that individual video is. You became uncivil when you blocked him and someother user was dealing with it. -UWMSports (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil

Hi Tony. I have to disagree with a comment you made here. There really wasn't anything uncivil about what I wrote. You'll notice that I actually agreed with him/her. It's totally ok for someone who knowingly, and repeatedly goes against consensus without discussing things, to feel frustrated - "ganged up upon" is how he/she put it. This is an uncivil edit. I've seen editors blocked for weeks for stuff like that. Now I'm not free of fault in the situation - as Wjhonson pointed out, I probably shouldn't have labeled FancyMustard's edits as vandalism, but I think it's ok for me to validate FancyMustard's feelings. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Rough Collie and User:Collectonian

Hi Tony

I apologize for editing Collectonian's user page, but Quite frankly this person seems to believe they own WP, and will under no circumstances allow any other user to edit certain pages, which I find annoying as WP is supposed to be a community project. What can one do to combat such people? I came to an article with two pretty poor images and statements like This dog is quite nice or Some are like this, but others are not and hoped I could (a) add better images and (b) improve the text. I never progressed as far as (a)! I corrected some grammatical mistakes on (b) and was reverted! Not a single statement in the original was referenced, yet I added a comment and was told it was unsuitable because it was not referenced.

As a retired academic, I find this sort of attitude most frustrating and I am sure that others will be equally discouraged from (trying to) make any changes or corrections to WP too. I have come across many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your articles but every time I try to correct them I get reverted. It is not as though I am adding vandalistic content like Joe Bloggs was here to the articles either. The reverters seem to claim that any change is vandalism!

I am getting disillusioned with this whole project and am wondering whether the rival from Google may not be better. WP seems more and more the preserve of a group with a non-neutral point of view who will defend that POV at all costs. Mike0001 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I appreciate you stepping in and trying to tame this situation, however I do not thing anything is going to change as long as Mike continues doing things like this[4] which, to me, indicates that he may have no intention of living by whatever conclusion is reached in the article talk page when he can not show any level of respect for other editors. Collectonian (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony...sorry to bother again. I'm not sure if you're keeping an eye on Mike's stuff, but he seems to be causing trouble again on a variety of Christian articles, including Angel, Archangel, Christ, where he is adding very NPOV statements to articles. When an editor reverted his edits to Angel and left warnings, Mike left retalitory warnings on the editors page.[5][6] I reverted his edit to Archangel, but considering our past history, I'll leave it to someone else to deal with the rest. Perhaps it would help if you talked to him about neutrality and the need to source contentious statements? Collectonian (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I have made a considerable number of contributions recently without reverts. The two sites mentioned were religious based, not christian. I was not aware that it was a POV to state the fact that there was no evidence for the existence of angels? What would make this fact NPOV? Regards Mike Mike0001 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]