User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/August 2007

The Wages of Sin

Seven rangeblocks, according to checkuser, and they were going right to the end. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

You might want to ask for a WP:OVERSIGHT on that talkpage edit you reverted as it contains personal information and not the vandals at that...--Isotope23 ^talk 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll get right on it. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Request sent. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A day on, and the version is still there. I haven't got a reply yet. I guess they're quite busy with these things. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no response and no action yet taken, nine days on... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might try again - I made a request last night and it was done by this morning. Acroterion _(talk) 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been visited by oversight [1]. Acroterion _(talk) 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for that. It's also relieving to see that some headway might finally be made on this case as well. My mum was round the other day, and she kept asking me "who is The dreaded walrus prodigy? Is that you?". :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that Mother Walrus takes an interest in you, but I bet your mum would visit more often if you were more like your sister Beloved Walrus ;) Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy buddy

Long time no talk mate. How ya been? -Cam^T|C 22:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, guy! You haven't been on Wikipedia much lately.. you need to get back to editing some more! :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's sad. My whole body has been messed up, I've been sick, and sleeping at weird times, but luckily I am getting back on schedule, so I will be awake for my early morning edits. =) I've also been playing lots of Warcraft, hehe. -Cam^T|C 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... I know all about the sleeping patterns thing. I hope you get better soon, your edits have been missed. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you kindly. =) I am looking forward to coming back. Hehe -Cam^T|C 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Cake Mania

I think that people needs to know about the games; why do you always erase everything in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macys123 (talk • contribs).

The reason why I keep making this change, is because Wikipedia is not a game guide. It is an encyclopedia, and it is not important to the reader of an encyclopedia article to know how many ovens the player can use, and how much they cost to the player. If you want to write these things somewhere, then go to GameFAQS or Wikibooks, because you must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because anyone can edit here does not mean that we should include everything just because it is true.

If you are wondering about my other changes in that edit, which you keep indiscriminately reverting [2] [3] [4], the word "popular" is uncited, and is largely irrelevant anyway. It is certainly not as popular as many other casual games, and without a citation saying the game is popular, I figured I would remove it, in order to improve the quality of the article. I changed "Official Cake Mania Website" to "Official Cake Mania website" to fit in with our manual of style, and indeed, the English language itself. The word "website" should not be capitalised apart from, say, at the start of a sentence. The other, final change I made, was adding the stub tag, as unfortunately, the changes I made kind of made the article back into a stub. However, I feel that even as a stub, the overall quality of the article is higher now than it was before.

I should also make you aware of our three-revert rule, as you have currently reverted twice in 24 hours. [5] [6]

And finally, without meaning to put too fine a point on it, I find a few of your other changes have been quite curious. Replacing my entire old userpage with one character [7]? Moving my talk page into article space, inexplicably [8]?

Anyway, I hope this explains to you why I made those changes, and causes the edit war to end. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers

You might be confused a bit. St47 isn't a checkuser (see the list of checkusers page. He was actually fairly recently promoted to admin (I remember, as I nominated him). Not sure who you were thinking of but anyway, thought I'd correct you. The user he was warning is still wrong to be trolling like that anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion on my part. In the top-right corner of ST47's userpage, one of the images has a pop-up saying "this user is a checkuser clerk". My mind simply remembered that as "has checkuser privileges", which came across in the message on Fluence's talk page. Thanks for the reminder. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jade comment

Yeah up to 1500 people on Wikipedia are admins so it is almost impossible for they to commit vandalism. I think ST47 is just overloading his job on deleting media without the FUR, maybe I'm wrong either but you're right however on that matter. Thanks.--Fluence 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGE!

OMG you edited my comment and corrected my obvious glaring error! Arrgh! I burn your embassies! lol - Thanks, I re-read what I'd written -twice- and didn't spot my stupid mistake lol. --Monotonehell 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just figured it's better I caught it before s/he did. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

aStore

Thanks for the message about my edits. Made my day! -- SiobhanHansa 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell

The cleanup page says "You may report confusing/messy articles below and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.). Please do not add articles below simply because they are POV or are lacking sources." Nobody has specified which of these issues actually require attention, and the page has been significantly improved since the AfD was made.83.67.217.135 13:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The text you mention (which appears at Wikipedia:Cleanup) is referring to the manually-created list which appears on that page, as part of the small WikiProject dedicated solely to cleaning up Wikipedia. It is not referring to the automatically generated list that is created by listing all pages with {{cleanup}} on it, or its derivatives (which can be seen here). The page that you are looking for is actually here. It has a list of all the more specific cleanup templates, along with how to use them, e.t.c.

{{cleanup}} is just used for when an article needs general cleanup, as was indicated on the AfD, as even though the article has been improved (and almost certainly will be kept), it is still rather unencyclopedic in ways. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that still leaves my original question. As the person who seems to be doing most of the (constructive) editing on the page, it seems perfectly fine to me. There's nothing wrong with the grammar, the factual claims are more or less all accompanied by citations where required (though the way things are going I fully expect someone to put a "citation needed" mark beside the subject's name), and it all seems relevant and fair. As yet, absolutely nobody has actually explained specifically what about it needs changing, something which the Cleanup page stipulates as preferred practice. "General cleanup" is singularly unhelpful...83.67.217.135 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are hardly constructive and in a number of cases are violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --81.179.78.4 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again a useless non-specific and therefore totally unconstructive claim.83.67.217.135 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The link given quotes Campbell as saying this: ""There's certainly no randomness involved," he says. "At times it will throw you a jackpot to keep you interested but most of the time it has a pre-set block on what you can win that will be quite low."" At absolutely no point did FairPlay campaign against this feature, however. As is explicitly noted on their website, FairPlay campaigned solely against fixed "gambles". The block is entirely necessary to enable the machine to function correctly.83.67.217.135 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Campbell criticised the feature, which is what the sentence you keep removing states. --81.179.78.4

No he didn't. He stated it as a fact. There is nothing in the quote above which could be legitimately described as "criticism". And in any event it's difficult to see the relevance of the quote to the entry,83.67.217.135 20:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The piece continues: "Over the years players could have lost tens of millions of pounds in prize money due to the hidden limits, said Mr Campbell".

It's not exactly ringing praise. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fruit machines are designed to make profit (ie to have their players lose money), and it is legal for them to do so. FairPlay never at any point suggested that this should not be the case, only that one very specific mechanism for doing this should be outlawed. Your quote above is simply another statement of fact.83.67.217.135 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question didn't actually mention FairPlay, it specifically said the complaint was made by Campbell (albeit as a spokesman for FairPlay). Rather than try to second-guess what Campbell meant by his mention of pre-set blocks, it could be reworded to something like "Campbell made note of" rather than "Campbell criticised", although it almost certainly sounds like a criticism to me. --81.179.78.4 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

? (2)

I'm sorry about bothering you, but I have a question. Why are you interest on the article Cake Mania? I'm sorry and I'll leave you alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macys123 (talk • contribs).

Don't worry about bothering me, it really is no hassle. As for the answer to your question, I was browsing Special:Newpages when the article was created, and saw that there were a few changes I could make, which I did. I then added the page to my watchlist, as I often do when I edit new pages, as often these pages aren't watchlisted by many people. That's how I am interested in the page. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert on my talk page

Thanks for the revert on my tlak page ([9]). I hadn't noticed it was gone. -- SiobhanHansa 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, probably just made a mistake, the new user. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jet Set Radio

Is posting a Jet Set Radio fan site in External links on the Jet Set Radio page spam? I don't want to spam. Raffage 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's alright. It's just, we usually don't let people add links to sites they're affiliated with (in this case, you are a member of the forum, at the least). And the site you inserted a link to doesn't really seem that big. A forum with ~10 threads on, you know?

Maybe (hopefully) one day, your site will become a big resource for all JSR fans the world over, and then it will definitely deserve a link. :)

If you'd like more information on what kind of external links are appropriate, have a look at our external links policy, and if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me, alright mate? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked?

So if i'm not actually blocked, can i remove the tag from my profile that says i am? Atraxus 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it a little while first, to see what happens. Many people don't take kindly to people removing their edits. What you can do for now is remove your unblock request, as right now you aren't currently blocked. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Atraxus 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As it happens, I, too, agree that your category should be deleted, and I don't agree with personal remarks such as this one. Just try to stay cool, alright? :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have responded at WP:AIV - with a note of what I find if I click the "block log" link. I will see if I can block the user, regardless, for the duration of the "block". LessHeard vanU 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I should have mentioned that I saw that one too, but that one was back in April, as ElKevbo mentioned before it was taken off. Still, Atraxus seems to have stopped adding articles to his category for now. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

APRIL!!!?... um... I had best stop editing WP before I forget to turn the bathtaps off... or something... g'night! LessHeard vanU 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, it's alright. Easy mistake to make, I guess. Especially as there was no previous mention of a block on the user's talk page. Still, hopefully he/she won't actually need blocking now. Goodnight mate. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect you to disgree with the deletion argument but you're attitude has been fair throughout. Many thanks. Atraxus 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guy. Make sure to read all the links in that message I put on your talk page, alright? And like it says, if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me and I'll try my best to help. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

UFC 77 Edits

I was just trying to clarify the UFC 77 edits I made. Quite simply the only fight that has been confirmed for the event is Rich Franklin vs. Anderson Silva. I added all of the fights I could confirm but many of the bouts listed on the rumored card are cited using sources very similar to mine. I think that the 3 other, non-official bouts should be removed or the edits I made should be added. I am not trying to make a big deal out of this but just want to be clear on what sources can and cannot be used. If you could put you comments on my page that'd be great, thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriskarkoski (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Responded to user on his talk page here, as per his request. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'm still getting acquainted to the editing of artices! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriskarkoski (talk • contribs).

No problem at all. :) If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me and I'll do my best to help. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Accidental Vandalism - number stripping

Thanks for flagging up the accidental vandalism on my edits. Editors of the Wolverhampton Wanderers FC entry had alerted me to an accidental vandalism on that page, but hadn't spotted either the cause nor the fact that it was happening on all my edits. Your suggestion of telephone numbers was key to me spotting the cause - the JahJah add-on for Firefox which allows you to make internet phone calls from ordinary phones. I installed it as a trial and didn't proceed (I never understand why a facility which promises "free" calls asks for credit card details)!!! Anyway, the JahJah add-on affected the way numbers displayed in web pages - turning them all into links which you can click on for JahJah to dial. I guess it was this which was causing the problem. I have re-edited the Walsall FC page and hopefully there is no errors this time. Thanks for offering support without flaming! 87.127.44.154 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I looked at my edit summary this morning: "response regarding User:87.127.44.154's vandalism", and I thought to myself "that seems a bit accusatory. Perhaps I should have put 'accidental' in there somewhere", as I have no doubt that you didn't deliberately delete content from the article. I'm glad you didn't take it that way. I felt guilty all morning. ;)

And for what it's worth, you're right, your recent edit to the Walsall article was entirely without removal of numbers. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feel guilty - I didn't take umbrage at all. Your comments were helpful and not accusatory. The reason I didn't respond earlier was simply that I daren't reply anywhere for fear of causing further problems until I sussed what the difficulty was. 87.127.44.154 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Medical Center

Ha! It is very interesting that some users also receive this message. But I can't undo the comments on my talk page! (Addaick 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

There's no rule at all against removing comments from your userpage, especially if that user just cross-posted that comment to many different userpages, as he did this time (see his contributions). If you remove his comment from your page, you won't be warned or anything. :)--Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Addaick 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

The pitfalls of editing articles with a spell-checker

This is prompted by your recent edit of Richmond Medical Center with your Firefox spell-checker. While I can see some value to using such a device for the "spelling challenged" (to coin a horrible phrase), it ought to be kept in mind that this can lead to errors, such as all the wrongly capitalized words ("Asthma", "Refinery", etc.) you left in the article. (About half the terms you changed should not have been capitalized, because they're not proper nouns.)

Just thought you might want to know. TTFN. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, normally I would actually read the edit window as I was doing the manual spellchecking, and make the relevant changes actually with a keyboard, but this one was just really quick, as after chipping in on the talk page, I had a look to see what images were actually being used on the article, and saw the cleanup tag at the top. I had somewhere to be, but I know that Cholga's English is not always the best, and wanted the article to be at least incrementally better. Feel free to make the necessary changes, or, when I wake up later, I'll go through the article more thoroughly. Good night. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the ref from EA

I'm just trying to cite as many as I can with reliable sources.--ChibiMrBubbles 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! You didn't do anything wrong. I was going to congratulate you on your effort. Just find as many citations as you can, and provide them as links too, if you want. All I did was convert the reference you provided from an external link into a citation. Please do go ahead and find more citations, alright? Great work so far on that one. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

cars

I know Wikipedia is uncensored, but this is a e rated game and little kids will want to know about the game. If we have to leave this as it is oh well, but think about it first. Please respond on my talk page. --Playstationdude 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

responded to user. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

notability

The other day you wrote: And besides, the notability guidelines are not actually required for mentioning something in an article (as the main notability guidelines specifically state). Rather, notability is with regards to whether something should have its own article. If a politician is notable enough to have their own article, they're surely automatically worth noting as someone who is linked with a school/college/university. My question is, if an individual is a politician or athlete and they do not have a Wikipedia article (i.e.-redlinked) are they automatically entitled to be listed on a notability list on another page (a college page for example)? Also, if an academic has their own Wikipedia article are they automatically entitled to be listed on a notability list? Thanks for your help, I am new to all of thisBmstephany 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm glad to help people, and thanks for staying cool even after I warned you for personal attacks in a previous message. :)

Now, onto the actual response. In no way at all does being a redlink (not having an article) guarantee notability, or guarantee suitability for inclusion on a list. It is paradoxical. The vast majority of the world's population does not have a Wikipedia article about them. There are close to two million articles on the English Wikipedia, and if we make the incredibly generous assumption that half of those articles are on people, then that makes 1 million people with Wikipedia articles about them. This means that there are 6.5 billion people without Wikipedia articles about themselves. I am one of those people. I am not notable enough to be included in any article or list on Wikipedia, even in passing, unless that article was list of people who aren't the subject of Wikipedia articles. ;)

Now, this does not mean that in every single case, there should be no people included in an article who are redlinked, but it must be judged on a case by case basis. Our list of UFC champions would be incomplete, and therefore a worse article were it not for mentioning the runners up in the tournaments section, despite many of them them being redlinked.

I imagine that in this particular case, the redlinks you're referring to are Gerald J. LaValle and Casey Hageman. While I must admit I do not live in America, and have only visited America four or five times in my 21 years, I would assume that Casey Hageman would be one of the more notable graduates/alumnis/attendees of the school, having played baseball in the most high-profile league in the world. According to this page (watch out for popup), he played 32 games. While this doesn't exactly make him Babe Ruth, he's probably still worth mentioning. I'm not too familiar with the way U.S. congress works (i.e. how many members there are), so I must avoid making comment on whether he is worth including on the list.

The other people your message was about, I assume, are Dr. Walt Mueller and Dr. Steve Garber. Now these, I am not so certain about. A quick couple of Google searches [10] [11] don't turn up very many results, though Google results can often be skewed (the amount of sites on a Google search for Casey Hageman, for example, that merely list the overall stats of the player is one way in which the internet itself is often skewed towards sporting figures). What you may be interested in doing is creating an article for Mueller or Garber, by clicking on the redlinks I provided above, and making sure that they meet our notability guidelines for people. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Your first article, which should help you not to make any rookie mistakes in the creation of said article. :) Feel free to develop the article in your userspace (you may want to create a subpage of your userpage, for example at User:Bmstephany/sandbox) so that you can get the article in good shape before actually moving it into the main article space. If you want, you can link me to any article you create (or work on in your userspace, where it is given a little more liberty while you are working on it, so won't get deleted instantly), and I will do a few bits of any cleanup necessary, and such like.

Your final point was whether having an article automatically entitles one to being mentioned on a list, and it is a good point to make. Our article on Strikers, a position in football (or soccer ;)), has a list of notable players who play in those roles. Now, they are not the only people who play in those roles. We have articles on tens of thousands of football players, and many of those are strikers. However, listing thousands of players there would be impractical, so we try to list only the most notable. In the article on Geneva college, however, the list of people, if we included all people with articles there, would not really be too large, so I would say in this case, yes, a person with an article should be included in the list, as long as they fit the list's criteria.

Sorry for having such a drawn-out response here, and for taking a few hours to respond to this (my mum was visiting me today. :)), but I look forward to your response on this. I would take part in the discussion on the article's talk page, but I feel everything has pretty much already been said here. If you and User:Nyttend are unable to reach an agreement on the matter, then I'd probably recommend requests for comment over third opinion, as it generally helps to build more of a consensus, in my experience.

Apologies if my earlier comment on your talk page was perceived as hostility or arrogance, it really wasn't the intention (hence why I gave you a customised notice regarding civility rather than a boilerplate warning). So, allow me to balance out my previous message by saying something I intended to say at the time: While the photos you originally uploaded were copyrighted, they were also in my opinion quite low quality (and low resolution). Meanwhile, I think the photos you yourself have taken for Wikipedia (especially Image:Johnston Gym 07.JPG, but also Image:Old Main Geneva College.JPG) are of very high quality, and my only problem with them is that I wish they were even higher resolution. ;)

Regards, Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I basically wrote a shorter version of this :-) Nyttend 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

cars again

I understand. By the way, don't think anything about me deleting the messages. I just don't like the word on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playstationdude (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Feel free to delete the messages off your talk page, if you personally are offended by those words. Though, if possible, try to provide links to the messages you deleted, as a common courtesy, or even better, archive them. This means that people viewing your talk page in future won't think that there has never been a message there, you know? :)

If you want to link to the messages (as an alternative to properly archiving them), then the links to those two messages are here: [12] [13] --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For your hard work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For excellent work in keeping the peace! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? [14]Cholga^talK! 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:David Haivri

Could you please revert the 'move' you made. Please comment on that talk page. Thanks. --Shuki 06:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

Hi, I see that part of the rationale for the Genderfuck AfD was "patent nonsense". I thought I'd draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page, and point out that "patent nonsense" has a pretty tightly defined meaning on WP. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I understand this. See also that I note that the AfD was submitted on behalf of User:87.127.44.154. I've mentioned in the AfD I have no actual opinion on the deletion of the article, though, being a (very) occasional newpages patroller, I understand the WP definition of patent nonsense. So thanks very much for the message, but I feel it would be much better targeted at User:87.127.44.154, the nominator.  :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and apologies if my wording came across as patronising, it was entirely unintentional, I don't always have a way with words... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries about the tone, I just thought that if you had understood the grounds for nomination were ill-conceived that you would have explained that to the anon user rather than forwarding them on their behalf. I understand that you were just trying to help them out, but perhaps explaining their error to them would have been more productive. There may be a rationale for not allowing anons to edit that page. This would be shortcircuited if we had registered users acting on the behalf of an anons such as this, with a fairly lengthy editing history and little demonstrated interest in registering. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that they aren't allowed to edit that particular page - anon editors aren't allowed to create any pages (and rightfully so - newpages has enough speedy candidates as it is). I agree that some of his rationale may have been invalid, and also that an explanation of certain guidelines and policies (particularly WP:NONSENSE, as you point out) though I personally feel that users should not be restricted from any particular action merely because they don't have an account (unless they are blocked, of course, or if the action is clearly bad faith). So in this instance, and in one or two others, I have nominated an article for deletion on behalf of a good-faith IP even when I feel that an article should be kept (indeed, in one case, an AfD has been closed as speedy keep). Besides, the user seems to suggest an interest in registering here, having became particularly active this month. It will be interesting to see what happens here... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

surnames may be used

you said it yourself "surnames may be used", NOT MUSTAladdin Zane 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So i will be placing the article back to a NPOV at a later dateAladdin Zane 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please don't misquote me. my response was the following:

I read your entire contribution, so I was not reverting "because of one word". I don't quite understand the accusation. I reverted for the reasons I provide above, stated here again: You changed instances of "Presley" to say "Elvis", which goes against WP:MOSBIO. You cite the bit that says "surnames may be used", but fail to mention the second paragraph of that section, which states when first names can be used. Namely: "

"The person may be referred to by their first name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince/ss John/Jane," or "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. Similarly, if someone has been knighted they may be referred to as, eg. "Sir Stephen" (for Sir Stephen Redgrave) or "Dame Judi" (for Dame Judi Dench) - but never as "Sir Redgrave" or "Dame Dench". For other subjects, it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant."

This is clearly not the case here. Your other change was to change "Presley refused to watch this movie because of this" to "Presley refused to watch this movie because of her tragic accident", as shown here, so again I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "before you changed it TRAGIC was not in it, it just said accident".

Also, please remember to assume good faith, and avoid making personal remarks against other editors, as you did here ("which shows ignorance on your part"), and here ("I think you need to pick up a dictionary to know the difference"). I hope now you understand why we all feel your changes to that article are not in agreement with guidelines. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence, I did not suggest that "surnames may be used", and to suggest I did is Quote mining. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you did, and the bottom line was you editted MY talk pageAladdin Zane 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...Yes. Yes I did. I did this because I was contacting you. In response to a message that was on your talk page. And that message was regarding your conduct. This is what user talk pages are for. Please remember that you do not own pages on Wikipedia. You cannot just declare someone unable to edit your talk page, for no good reason. If you feel I have done something grossly wrong here, please feel free to discuss. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comments on Phil's page

While I was posting on Phil Sandifer's page, I saw your comments. Just so you know, you can list previous AfDs, GACs, etc, with the {{ArticleHistory}} template. I've done it for the page anyhow. Good day, David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I saw your edit on my watchlist, and figured that's how you came across it. I've seen the milestones template around, but I couldn't think of any articles that had it off the top of my head, and while I suppose I could have just went to a popular article and found it there, I didn't think of that at the time. Again, thanks for that. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its rather hard to find generally, I think, because it's relatively recent in usage. Most FAC and GAC promotions/demotions urge reviewers to add in the template now, which is the only reason I knew about it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember previously, even on higher resolutions, on talk pages of popular articles, you would regularly have to scroll down just to get to the contents table. I'm all for this template, personally. It looks great. Same thing with {{articleissues}}, which I guess is like the article equivalent. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The other great use one is the multiple wikiprojects template, {{WikiProjectBanners}}. And looking at the template page, there are a couple more good templates there. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)