User talk:Wallie/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Wallie/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Indian subcontinent earthquakes list Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

Napooleon

Thanks for adding the citation to the article criticizing Napoleon's legacy. We don't want an article that glorifies Bonaparte; nor do we want one that trashes him. We want to present the whole picture. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You love everybody?

Do you love TOBY? --SPUI (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I do. Wallie 09:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And we love you. :) One request regarding the racehorse stubs: You need to add more content beyond "so-and-so is a well known Australian racehorse." That's a good opening sentence, but not much of an article, I'm afraid. How many races did the horse win? Any major events? Who sired it and at what farm? Add a little basic info and you'll be fine. Love ya...have a great weekend! - Lucky 6.9 14:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Racing.

I see you are a fan of horseracing, seeing the multiple Horse race articles that have been put up. I'm one too, but I live in England Sceptre 10:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

Your life hell? Right. If that's the case, maybe you need to take a break, if not being able to insert your personal opinion of Paris Hilton into this encyclopedia means that much to you. --Golbez 20:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need break. I just need you off my back. Wallie 06:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get something straight. You apparently have a misunderstanding of the rules. Read WP:3RR. It states that one may not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period, not ever, which you seem to think it means. If I see any more comments from you about me on this matter, whining to other people about my work here, I will take it to higher authorities. This will be my last communication with you or to you, unless you require it. Please let it be your last to me or about me. This does not mean I will stop editing the article in question. --Golbez 19:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton

The removal of your edits on Paris Hilton was entirely proper. Please see the verifiability and neutral point of view policies for more info. We don't have huge amounts of rules on content here, but those two are utterly essential. Friday (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Friday#Paris Hilton. Friday (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: StarCraft / Starcraft (horse)

Please look at the what links here for Starcraft. A quick scan indicates most if not all of the links are intended for the video game. According to the article, the horse has only been known to the world, as per his win, since September 2005. Compare this with a enormously popular video game that has been around for 7 years and continues to thrive? I have reason to believe that most speakers of English who enter "starcraft" into the search box are looking for the video game, not a race horse that has only entered recent memory. Hence why the page was moved. Again, look at what links here.

Anyways, all of this does not matter because the horse is linked to at the top of StarCraft. —jiy (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kelly

Your revert was wrong. A German-American is someone both in America of German descent. Grace Kelly's mother was of German descent, so Kelly was a German-American. Given her father's ancestry she was also Irish-American. To be a hypened American does not require that either you or your parent was born in that country, just that that your ancestry is traced back there and you associate with it. John F. Kennedy was born in the US, as was his father, yet both are described as Irish-Americans because Kennedy's grandfather came from Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Grace Kelly is German is plain silly, to my mind. Why an Irish-American too? She hardly ever went near Ireland, or Germany for that matter. Probably better to call her an American-Monacoan. After all she was born in America and later lived in Monaco for the rest of her life. With you argument, all American citizens are also African-Americans, as the first human beings all came from Africa. Wallie 07:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. She was regularly in Ireland. She even owned property in Ireland. She and Rainier were forever in Ireland. She called herself Irish-American all the time, never American. She also was a regular visitor to Germany. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 08:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. Many Americans link directly with their ancestral heritage, whether Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, British-Americans, French-Americans, German-Americans, African-Americans, Russian-Americans. It involves ancestral links, not trivial visits. I'll treat the comment about visiting with the contempt it deserves. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Paisley

Please do not continue to edit the Ian Paisley article to assert your POV that he is entitled to the 'Dr.' honorific. This issue was setled in discussion on the talk page, and no consensus was gathered to grant Paisley special treatment. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 12:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Barberio. You say that I am having a POV saying that Ian Paisley or anyone else is entitled to call him "Dr.". This is either true or false. I put in the OFFICIAL reference from the British Government, and you still dispute this, and call it POV, and indeed remove it. If you think that what I have said is POV, then take it up with the British Government, and tell them that what they say is POV too. Wallie 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed on the talk page, what political groups consider appropriate to use for political reasons must not be considered. This would be blatent POV. British Government use of the phrase is made in consideration of the politics of NI, not any legitimacy of that honorific. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I suspect that your addition to Ian Paisley about the Catholic church calling him "Dr." might not stay in the article, I wanted to nevertheless mention that if the argument there has now resulted in people providing citations, then things are progressing in a way that is improving the article. I appreciate it, and please keep up the good work. Jkelly 17:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact, which, as you might recall I brought up a few days ago, that the article is unreferenced is pretty much the reason why this edit war is going on. It's a pattern repeated throughout Wikipedia on every article with even the most trivial of controversy (see Balrog, for example). Believe me, Ian Paisley is nowhere near the most biased article on Wikipedia, nor is it the most like someone's personal essay, but if the edit war can become instead an effort to include only facts, and enter only opinions by experts with proper citations, I assure you that the article will be both improved and more neutral. Jkelly 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wallie, I responded to your comments on the above on my talk page. --Ryano 22:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any article about Paisley or Adams could be other than critical! --Red King 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A pity. Wallie 21:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, Wallie! I see that you're a Paisleyite like me. You can contact me through here; [[1]]

"monacans"

The adjective is "Monegasque"; hence perhaps the category is best titled "Monegasque people". — Dan | Talk 06:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never do that again.

NEVER EVER post someone else's text from someone else's website on a WP page. That breaches copyright law. We may have to get someone to delete that information from WP archives and hope to God the site you technically stole that from did not notice. Christ, never ever ever do that. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 20:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC) OK. Wallie 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting images

It appears that we may have been looking at different images on the Paisley page. My screen was showing the official image from the NIA. Some people were seeing a much less attractive closeup of Paisley. If you were seeing that then that was the cause of our disagreement over that image. We were seeing two different images. (The problem was caused by the cache. I had downloaded the original image and my cache was showing the version I had downloaded on the page, not the vandalistic replacement.) If that was the source of the dispute then I apologise. You had every right to be angry at that image. If I had seen it I would have deleted it not merely from the article but from WP. Problems caused by different broswers and cached images do sometimes cause rows where both sides see different images, layouts, pages, etc. It rarely happens but may have done so now. (The worst row I ever saw involved three people engaged in a revert war where all three were seeing three different versions of a page and each saw one that screwed up in layout terms. But when they 'fixed' the other saw what looked like perfectly good page screwed up. So they fixed it, only for the third then to see a major problem. The problem was only spotted when someone asked for screen saves of all three, and all three were seeing totally different things, thanks to browser problems.)

Anyway, if that was the cause of our disagreement I apologise. I would have been as angry and you with that image. I had no way of knowing that there were two images because the 'cleaned up' version was described as a cleaned up version of the original, not a totally new image.

BTW the reason I reacted so angrily to your post was because it could have had the most serious repercussions for WP. A quote from a page is OK, but an entire article being replicated like that is in terms of law, theft. A court case could have done massive damage to WP. An injunction could have had the site closed down. Any admin seeing that pasting of an entire article would have gone ballistic. (One user, a friend of mine, was actually banned instantly for doing something like that, and computer records and archives changed to remove any reference to the stuff cutted and pasted in.) I know you think I am targeting you but that is not so. But again, apologies over what appears to have been a problem over images displayed on caches. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK and Thanks. Wallie 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the user page! FearÉIREANN 08:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wallie 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and the compliment. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Durova 18:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One can't please everyone. Wallie 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie, the exchange you saw on my user page did not refer to you. I apologize if it hurt your feelings. The effect was purely accidental. A reasonably prominent article like Joan of Arc attracts a lot of traffic. Durova 07:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of heroes

the Germany wase the main villains in WW2. The murded million of people, did war crimes and, the most worsted, whe killed 6 million jews. So you thinke him is a hero. you think wrong. only neo-nazi thinks the are hero.

Comment: Woah! I believe that certain people who fought on the German side during WW2 were heroes. This is realistic, as there must be one or two heroes among the 10+ million odd participants. If you want to know my uncle were killed in WW2 fighting the Germans, and my father was badly wounded. However, my father was a prisoner of war of the Germans, and always held them in the highest regard in the way they conducted themselves as fellow human beings. So please don't mention any more of what appears to be very racist attitudes against German people any more. Thank you. Wallie 07:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

and Stalin murded 50 million of people so he is not a hero. He is a villain.

Amerikans and british have never murded 6 million civilian , special woman and children. But the german do it and it was the german how started the war. (like when the stared WWI). fucking nazi. damn all nazi.

And can you stopid take of Carlos belo, Emmeline, John Rabe, Mohammed Mossadegh, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Rigoberta Menchú, Václav Havel and Xanana Gusmão. the are hero, not like Stalin how are a stupid, evil and crazy bitch how killed 50 million people, like Hitler.

I have never say (swedish) att (english) Tenzing Norgay was a nazi and Stalin was in begin of the war a friend of Hitler before Hitler become more crazy.

This is a strange article, but your edits of it are quite strange also. If the criterion is that these are people who "have been considered heroes", why remove Emmeline Pankhurst, Belo, Gusmao etc? --Ryano 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove them intentionally. They may be been removed by me reverting to an earlier version. Naturally I would agree that the names you mention should be on the list. Wallie 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your atmosphere of incivility concerns

Hi. You seem to already have a good grasp of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, which are of great importance to the community. Your message was a little abstract. If you're concerned about the actions of a particular user, you are free to point out to me some edits that you think are breaking the WP:CIVIL policy, and I can go to their Talk page and ask them to review the policy, but if there is an ongoing problem it may be more effective to look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for what your options are. If there is no one particular user, you can take the initiative yourself when a conversation seems to be degrading to gently remind everyone involved to work together in a collegial atmosphere to write an encyclopedia. Often simply setting a good example and praising editors that are being constructive will have the effect of embarssing those who are behaving poorly into re-considering. If things get very bad, please see WP:PAIN for rapid admin attention. I hope that helps, and that you'll let me know if there is something more specific that you need. Jkelly 20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and [3] for me discussing what you were noticing. Jkelly 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adams

See what you think of the new opening three paragraphs in the Gerry Adams article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better thanks. Wallie 11:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English ballerinas

Hi, Wallie! I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to merge Category:English ballerinas with the already existing Category:British ballet dancers. I've started a discussion to that effect on Category talk:English ballerinas. As you are the original creator of the category, I'd welcome your opinion there. Thanks, LiniShu 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to merge these category, exactly as you want to. Wallie 07:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LiniShu 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yo

lookit did you by chance catch this right here?. do check it if you getta. Ish ^{(shoot some)} 04:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. I put it back. Thanks for telling me. Wallie 11:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counter insurgency

Whats the deal with your recent edits? I might be missing the relevance, could you explain them a bit more on the talk page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative tidbits"

A lot of trivia gets put into Wikipedia. Also, a lot of POV-pushing gets put into Wikipedia. Often, the easiest way to remove either without a drawn-out argument is to demand citations. But when the trivia or POV is well-cited that doesn't work. Wikipedia:No original research is also policy, and is another help in reducing POV-pushing. Taking sources ("So-and-so's grandfather was a Nazi") and applying them to a narrative ("...so they might be a racist too.") is "original research" by Wikipedia standards. The only proper way to do that is to say "Person x said that Person y might be a racist because their grandfather was a Nazi[CITATION]." After that, it is a matter of editorial consensus about whether that fact is relevent enough for inclusion. Do keep in mind that every article is a work-in-progress. If an article is both well-referenced and seems overly-slanted to a minority perspective, the way to proceed is to contribute to the article through researching what a majority view is and adding that into the article, properly referenced and in brilliant prose. Having said all of that, it is also important to be aware of our own biases. We are all often unaware of the fact that we ourselves are operating from a perspective if that same point-of-view is shared by everyone else around us. Wikipedia can also be a place to encounter people with a diverse set of opinions and to learn more sides to every story. Try to find time to also enjoy yourself at least as often as you engage in contentious discussions. Jkelly 01:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

Are you a Administrator? 213.114.215.199 10:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Nope. Wallie 11:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hero

Why you take of the People traditionally recognized as heroes from the artikel Hero? 213.114.215.199 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. I would never do this. Wallie 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why you say Wintson Churcill is no hero. He is more hero than Stalin? 213.114.215.199 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill have never betrayal the allied, USA and "Stalin". He figth the nazi to the end. And i say again. Stalin have murded 50 million of people and he figth togeder with Hitler before 1941. If you don't belive me. loked in Heroes and click in Churchill so you can se Churchill is a hero.

Stalins bad side i can see but Churcills bad side i can't see. sure, he pehapse killed million of nazi but how cares about the nazi. The earn it to be killed and tortured. And thanks to him, Franklin D. Rooevelt and Chang Kai-shek, the world become free from the Germany and Japan. 213.114.215.199 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical "villains" moved to List of historical people portrayed as villains

I thought you might be interested to know that I've moved the historical figures formerly on List of villains to List of historical people portrayed as villains. This has been discussed on Talk:List of villains for a while, and your comments pushed me into action. I think that having the historical people in a separate article helps with NPOV, since the criteria are more clearly stated — we're not making a judgement about whether these people were villains or not, just recording that they've been portrayed that way in works of fiction. Of course, due to Wikipedia's systemic bias towards Anglophone countries, there's going to be a lot of people on the list who were historical enemies of the United States and/or Britain. But I think the proper response to this is to add fictional portrayals from other viewpoints, rather than subtract the ones who are there. Does that make sense to you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and take Rommel out. I haven't seen Patton or the other works that were cited as portraying him as a villain, so I don't know how far they were from the (by all accounts truly honorable and decent) historical Rommel. I'm also sorry that I missed the AfD on the list of heroes, as I think it could have been salvaged in a similar manner, by a move to List of historical people portrayed as heroes or something similar, and applying criteria like the ones on the historical "villains" page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that biographical films such as Patton are a bit of a grey area, because they're based on a historical person, but aspects of the individual's life are inevitably changed for dramatic purposes. Different films stick more or less closely to the historical facts, with some (The English Patient and The Patriot come to mind) being essentially works of fiction in historical settings, with a few historical people's names stuck on. This is nothing new, either — I think few historians would say that Shakespeare's Richard III was an accurate portrayal of the king. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is nuts. Wallie, I made the comment about Patton, not Josiah. So why is your response on Josiah's page? --Happylobster 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did respond to you. Josiah also read it. I have sent you a note on your page. Wallie 15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll at List of villains

Hey, Wallie. Since 213.114.215.199 keeps reverting List of villains back to the old, alphabetical format, I decided that we ought to hold a straw poll to make the consensus on what to do about the page clear. (I thought it was clear before, but apparently it's not clear enough for 213.114.215.199.) I'd appreciate your input on the straw poll — apparently we're supposed to discuss the poll for a week or so before we vote, which seems silly to me, but I want to do this by the book.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it simpler to advise 213.114.215.199 what the format of the page is to be? He obviously likes the heroes and villains lists. I personally am not fussed, as long as it (the format) is sensible. The main objection to me is that the format keeps changing. I would have thought it was in everyones' interest including 213.114.215.199 to have a non changing format, whatever it is. If we have any poll, we also need to tell 213.114.215.199 what to do so he can take part in it too. So what do you want me to do now? Wallie 12:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that the change in format was originally instituted without getting a proper consensus on the talk page (see Talk:List of villains/Archive01 for the response to T-man's explosive arrival on the page). The organization is probably a good idea, but since it was begun without a proper consensus, I think 213.114.215.199 (who appears not to be a native speaker of English, by the by) misunderstood the changes and revert back to what he or she sees as vandalism (or at least reckless change). I instituted the straw poll in the hope of reaching a clearer consensus on the page's format, and proceed with that version of the page.

I can't just "advise 213.114.215.199 what the format of the page is to be", because I don't really have any more authority than he does, unless I'm backed by a proper consensus. That's why I started the poll, so we can determine what that consensus is and how strong it is. I have informed 213.114.215.199 about the poll, but he hasn't edited any Wikipedia pages since I started the poll, so I don't know if he knows about it yet. (I also hope that he wasn't confused by the back-and-forth over whether the poll was open — I certainly was!)

As for what I want you to do — that's really up to you. If you want to vote in the straw poll, please do. If, as you say, you're not fussed about the format as long as it's stable, then I guess you should just wait until the dust settles. (I've asked 213.114.215.199 not to revert to the old alphabetical format while the poll is going on, but I don't know if he'll cooperate.) It's a tedious process, but I think this is the best way to avoid an edit war on the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that everyone is now happy with the current format... Wallie 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know that I'd go that far (213.114.etc. has apparently chosen not to participate in the straw poll, instead putting childish insults in broken English on my talkpage). But it does seem that we have a pretty broad consensus to proceed with the categorization, so that if 213.etc. chooses to revert the page again, we'll be able to point to the straw poll (and the invitations for him to join the discussion), and take it to an RfC if necessary. (I hope that it won't be necessary, and that he'll accept the clear consensus, but if he doesn't we're now prepared to take the next step.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patton

I saw you edited the header of entry I recently made regarding Patton's racism. I agree that was a bad (and quickly chosen) title, but I think your is a little misleading (since he in fact had little respect for them). Also, I am planning on soon adding a section on some very antisemetic remarks he made toward the end of the war, and thought to include it under the same header. Maybe we can decide on a better title. Patton's Prejudices? I'm not great with titles, and usually make them succint, so I am open to other suggestions. Ken Albers 03:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have changed the title from "respect" to "attitude". This means the reader can make up his own mind. Wallie 07:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez

A group of us is forming together to start up an RfC on Golbez. If you'd like to join us, let me know. --User:Lord_Chess

thx for your note on my page :-). Best regards. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical people portrayed as villains

Why you sey the nazi are hero in movies?

I mentioned that Rommel was portrayed as a hero in "the Desert Fox". Here is what Churchill said about him immediately after he died:

"He also deserves our respect, because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life. In the sombre wars of modern democracy, there is little place for chivalry”.

Remember that everyone has to fight for his country in times of war. I really believe that each country fighting in a war has its heroes, not just the winning side. Wallie 12:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was leaving a message on your talk page to thank you for your message to me when my system crashed and I never got back to it. Thank you for your comments. They were appreciated. I'll hang around for a while yet! :-)

There is a WP:TFD vote to delete Template:Irish Republicanism. In my view the template is fatally flawed in a host of areas, littered with inaccuracies and would be a guaranteed source of endless POV battles between SFs, RSFs, 32 County nutcases, etc etc. We only need to look at the POV nightmares at the various IRA pages to see the nightmares that could be caused by a template that tries to describe who is in and who is outside Irish republicanism, who is a key figure and who isn't. Redking made an interesting suggestion in the debate where he suggested that in effect the template is part if a campaign of normalisation of the Provos to make them legitimate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton

You are, quite literally, mental.--Crestville 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a compliment--Crestville 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sadly we - like you - have a variety of stupid spoiled whores who modle themselves of Paris as well as the vacuous slut that is the real deal. And in case you didn't guess, you were wrong. I'm not a fan.--Crestville 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from the Paris Hilton article. As previously noted in the edit summary, Wikipedia articles are not censored for offensive language if it is pertinent to the article itself. --Yamla 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on censorship and that you feel that I am trying to besmirch Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the information you keep on removing from the Paris Hilton article is relevant and I'll thank you not to remove it again without discussing it on the talk page and/or getting Wikipedia's policy on censorship changed. --Yamla 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave your messages to me on my talk page instead of my main user page. --Yamla 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship does not mean what you think it means. To censor means to "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"[4]. While you may believe you have the right to censor Wikipedia or that the Wikipedia would be better if people removed potentially objectionable material, this is not the policy and it is considered vandalism to remove legitimate content. --Yamla 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I believe Paris Hilton is a racist or not. The section in the article is very carefully worded to be neutral and is properly cited. It discusses an important scandal in Hilton's life. I see no evidence that this section was added for "political" reasons, as you claim, and I do not see how censoring Wikipedia would be of benefit. You bring up George Washington. If you check that article, you will find there's a whole section on Washington and slavery. Just because you find this subject personally distressing does not mean that we should censor that section either. I also do not understand how you think you are "protecting the little people". Paris Hilton hardly qualifies and in any case, refusing to include information about controversial events may prevent consequences but is hardly in accordance with truth. --Yamla 16:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article I cited had nothing to do with Paris Hilton. However, in the article, it establishes that the reporter Carole works for the News of the World tabloid; That is why that is there. Also, if you needed you take that link out, you could have just edited that little part and not reverted the entire article as you just did. You reverted alot of other changes I made. Crumbsucker 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was that message you just wrote me related to my edits? My edits didn't attack her at all. In fact, I was trying to lessen the attacks. Crumbsucker 01:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rudeness

I have left a reply for you on my talk page. -Kasreyn 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to here. I definitely did not block you. I may have blocked an IP address you were attempting to use, but as you did not mention what IP that was, I can't do anything. Please also note that you are obviously not blocked, or you would be unable to leave messages for me. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address you gave in your more recent message is one that we have identified as being associated with extensive vandalism via open proxies. I suggest you not edit using whatever proxy service you're attempting to use to edit via that IP address. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the message left on my talk page

Contrary to your allegations, I did not call you a vandal. I said that some of your edits were careless and could have been misinterpreted as vandalism, and that rather than attack those who have misinterpreted your edits, you should try to learn from your mistakes and be more careful in the future. Based on the message you left on my talk page, which referred to me as a "dangerous person" and clamed that you are glad that you do not live anywhere near me, you did not heed my advice. A pity.--Conrad Devonshire 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your apologies

I accept your apologies and am glad that you have decided to try to be less at odds with others. I may have been a little too hasty with you, and if so, I apologise also. I think that you are capable of making valuable contributions to Wikipedia if you try to cooperate with others more, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia.--Conrad Devonshire 20:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Schmeling

Come on, dude, just think about it:

"Despite his supposed associations with nazism, used by propaganda of both sides..."

This should be "used as progaganda on both sides". The way you wrote it, it seems as if propaganda is the subject - it is this Propaganda entity that is using Max Schmeling's associations with Nazism (which is usually capitalized is it not?). It is in fact humans who are using this allegation "as propaganda". Do you get what I mean?

Not a demon after all.

Thanks for your comment at my talk page. No, no temperature. I must admit my opinion of PH is as low as it ever was, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let nonsense like "she's a bad dog owner" based on a freakin' poll into an article in an encyclopedia. Take care, Kasreyn 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Clark and Prebble's photo

Wallie, having a pic of Prebble on Helen Clark's page is inappropiate, I've put my reasoning on the Talk:Helen Clark, care to discuss it there? --Midnight tonight 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Replies

Please don't troll on Wikipedia. I can find no other term for your edits on the articles of New Zealand political leaders recently.

On the Helen Clark article, you remove a picture of Clark, saying it is stupid and reduces her credibility. No other editor on that page can understand what is wrong with the picture. You then place a picture of one of her political opponents in the article.

I removed it, and someone put it back. I did not pursue the issue.
The article was full of criticism of Helen Clark, and the politican was one of the critics. I put a picture of him related to and in the controversies section. Again, someone disagreed with its presence, and I backed down.

You criticise the existence of a "Controversies" section in the article, and get acknowledgement that the section would be better broken up and distributed through the article. You then add Controversies sections to articles on previous New Zealand Prime Ministers.

Yes I did criticize the controversies. But no one was willing to alter the situation. In order to make things equal, I added controversies section to two opposition leaders. This was probably an overreaction on my part. I was very annoyed at the POV material in Don Brash's article.

At Talk:Helengrad, you propose that a controversial article which survived AfD be merged into the main article on Wellington.

OK. I did propose this and you disagreed. However, I again went along with you.

In New Zealand English, you add an expression "on the wagon" which is by no means unique to New Zealand.

This is probably the most trivial one, which shouldn't even be mentioned. A lot of expressions in the article are not specific to New Zealand.

I can accept some inconsistencies and mistakes, but it seems your contributions on New Zealand topics are overwhelmingly negative, and I request that you either play a more positive role, or find another hobby not involving Wikipedia.-gadfium 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last part is grossly condescending, arrogant, insulting and untrue.
You call me a troll, and yet if I see a confrontation coming, I usually back down, if it is not important, or the other person points out something.

Wallie 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wallie.-gadfium 07:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One piece of advise

I notice you've been having some troubles around the place. I think the best way for you to handle it would be to discuss on the talk page any major edit of an article before you do it. I know it is unfair to you, not being able to just leap in there and do it, but it would probably be a useful step in calming the situation down. Hopefully everything can get sorted out easily. --Midnight tonight 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion you requested

The debate is here. Kind regards, Nandesuka 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, recreation of deleted content is not allowed. I suggest you look into the deletion debate and take up some of the suggestions there about where the appropriate place for some of the material was. Nandesuka 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please tell me whats going on :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the message. You have swayed me to stay! Charles 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest John

I'm afraid for someone who claims to have lived in Australia you don't understand Australian humor very well. The "Honest John" tag has always been satirical, referring to his perceived lack of honesty. We went through these a few months back when someone pushing the opposite agenda trying to plaster that all over the article. Rebecca 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, it is not Australian humour, it is POV. John Howard has been called "Honest John" for a long time now, and many people think of him as being honest. Thank you. Wallie 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you took that the wrong way, ie AN...

A number of admins shared with you that they were also older folks, and stated clearly that ageist comments would be considered personal attacks. At the same time, can they not make comments about themselves? I think you may be taking things too personally. I'm a mid 30s admin, and I feel there is a pretty representative sample of the general internet demographic ie a exponential curve with many people at the low end (teens and twenties) and very few at the top end. --Syrthiss 00:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. I hate to see people disgruntled. Does that mean I like to see them gruntled? ;) --Syrthiss 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Wallie

Hey, thank you for the compliment. :) I will try to FINISH working on that article, too, and with NPOV. :) See ya. ProfessorPaul 02:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie!

Sorry about that, Wallie (and everyone). I accidentally put my comment on your "user page" rather than your "talk" page. Sorry, man. :D Take care. ProfessorPaul 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee

Thanks, Wallie! I'm honored. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly gee, now I'm doubly honored. Thanks twice. BTW, it's good to give barnstars, simple thanks, and "yes"s whenever the occasion seems right. We're all volunteers here - a cyber "pat on the back" is about all the thanks any of us can get. Many times editors will (properly) post a note on a talk saying, "I'm planning to do this" or "This seems odd to me". If they're right, we should all go ahead and say so. However, those comments often fall on deaf ears. After all, who watchlists talk:Timbuktu? Thanks (thrice) this time for your own contributions to the project. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay

There are some good people around on Wikipedia. You can always put a note on my user page, if you need help. wallie

Thank you for your care and concern. I am here only, and continuing - I never told that I was going. Did I? Where shall I go when I have so many friends around. --Bhadani 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]