User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 8

Best of luck

I am sorry to see you go. You were invaluable at Articles for Creation and elsewhere. I understand your frustration with TfD, it is indeed very difficult to get anything accomplished through that process. In any case, best of luck in real life, I hope to see you around again some day. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come back soon. Wifione ^Message 06:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per Wifione. Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Only just noticed your request at BN. Sorry to see you go, I echo the sentiment that you will be missed—particularly at AfC. For what it's worth I think you are a fine editor and admin. I understand your general frustration, I have been there too. Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I'm gutted to see you going, I sincerely hope to see you return at some point. Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My RFA twin left. :( I sent you an email. Good luck in the real world --Guerillero | My Talk 06:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh...I'm sorry to see you go as well, although I completely understand why (your comment "I haven't been productive in content space for a while now, and I simply do not have the time and patience to commit to the maintenance side of this project anymore" is something that I can feel myself steadily moving towards). I can only repeat what the others have said above...like AQ and Pol, your recent work at AfC was incredible. Best of luck to you, yours, and in whatever the future holds. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Screw this dump, have fun in real life! Hopefully you'll meet less pompous people there! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for all the shoes fish. HurricaneFanAlt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 13:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Although I disagree with your nomination, you had every right to make it and did not deserve to be ridiculed in such a manner over it. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

:-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Please remove the four unnecessary paragraphs (above the first ----). While you're at it, the full protection can probably be removed, I protected in response to vandalism, and forgot to unprotect before leaving. Won't be around to reply, so thanks in advance. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CharlieEchoTango (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Self-requested block. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked, with pleasure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. Dru of Id (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you

It's pleasant to see you again. I hope all is well with you. :) SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

All is well... I was enjoying my wikibreak and didn't plan on coming back, at least not so soon, but it turns out the summer break is coming early for me this year, "thanks" to a mob of clueless stoners and violent marxists. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, violent marxists... Good to see you back, you have been missed. Pol430 talk to me 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for that [1]. I agree that this one's close, so if I'm ultimately overruled in talk page consensus, it won't break my heart. I don't have any problem with the current version sentence by sentence (aside from the SYNTH); my main concern is that we quote or state the views of a lot of a figures in this struggle but not the protesters themselves, which leaves things a bit unbalanced. Hopefully I'll have a few hours to put into rectifying this tomorrow, or perhaps someone will beat me to it. In any case, though, thanks for your edits and your courtesy. Khazar2 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We do quote a lot of figures, but as long as the positions of all sides are represented I don't see it as unbalanced; it's true we don't quote the protest leaders, but we don't quote the Premier either. Best regards, keep up the good work :) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta

Just for the record, the Homolka-dating is really dubious, and I'd like to suggest that it be left out at this point. This was one of the discussions from the past; the "evidence" was from his own website and wasn't verifiable elsewhere. At this point in the investigation, you know as well as I do that the media are going to publish anything they can get their hands on, whether or not it's verifiable. Risker (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought about this too, but the article said the police has confirmed the info, and all Postmedia newspapers are pretty much reporting the same thing (like The Gazette). Sun Media is all over this too and republishing their 2007 interview. Maybe Postmedia misinterpreted a police statement acknowledging the website 'evidence' and thought it was a confirmation that dating happened... I have no objection if you want to remove the info until we know more. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The way they're wording it now, they seem really sure of their stuff :

“ The game plan for his own disappearance is part of Magnotta’s enormous digital presence.

It will now be the difficult task of police investigators to sort fact from fiction.

Already, Montreal police have confirmed one of the many bizarre elements of Magnotta’s online profile: that he once dated notorious sex killer Karla Homolka.

Magnotta — he was born Eric Newman — has in the past denied any connection to Homolka. “I just wish it would stop,” Magnotta told a reporter in September 2007. “I wish they would leave me alone.”

”

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the part to make it clear these were rumours but that police believed he was having the relationship. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Luka Magnotta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luka Magnotta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ShipFan (Talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta request

Could you undelete the history of Luka Rocco Magnotta since, given the circumstances, reporters and others may be interested in looking at it for research? (This was the article he apparently created after Luka Magnotta was deleted.) Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only one edit at that page, and it's a move operation. What you're looking for is at Luka R Magnotta (I've restored its history). Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can "Talk:Luka_R_Magnotta" please be restored as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

your confrontational edit summary

hello. i would argue that we have had more than two encounters. didnt you remove my addition of a cn tag even though the wrong date was on there? i will look up the diff if you care. but this is not about that. your edit summary stated:

(diff | hist) . . Luka Magnotta‎; 21:32 . . (-14)‎ . . ‎CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs)‎ (again, unnecessary changes... "receipt of (...) sent by post" is a weird way to put it, "mailing" is simple and accurate, and "around the world" is more specific than "international")

your implication seems to be that "again" there were "unnecessary changes". to me this suggests exasperation and i recommend a wikibreak since you are clearly forgetting the way it went down. the statement that the mailing made international news seemed incorrect to me, and so i replaced mailing with receipt. there was no need for you to react in a way that discourages people to edit. i recommend you keep your snarky edit summaries to yourself if youre not prepared to get some in return. frankly i had forgotten our encounter on the birth year issue and that you are an admin, but since you implied edits are no longer welcome, i suggested the article should be protected. -badmachine 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response,

I didn't think "unnecessary" could be construed as a confrontational word and I am certainly not implying edits are no longer welcome; the changes were mostly cosmetic, so they did indeed seemed unnecessary and even unconstructive, aside maybe from that 'mailing' vs. 'receipt' part. I don't know where you see a sign of "exasperation" in my edit summary, so I guess we have a misunderstanding there, because it was never my intention to be "snarky" or seem aggressive... all of my messages were polite and concise, so I was surprised to see you giving me "some in return" and to be honest I simply don't understand the hostility, even in your message above (e.g. "take a break"). In any case, that first reference to my administrative privileges was inappropriate (tsk tsk indicates it was clearly meant in a demeaning way), but I accept your explanation for the second reference (though maybe you ought to take a break since you are clearly forgetting things). Ok, that last part was a joke. ;-)

Bottom line... a) my apologies if my comment(s) and action(s) seemed snarky as it was never my intention, b) my sysop status is only relevant if the tools are used.

I hope we can move forward now that this stuff is out of the way. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"again" + "unnecessary" seemed confrontational to me at the time. this is a subject that i am quite passionate about, and it seemed that you were discouraging edits. my three edits were more than cosmetic, and i deny that they are unconstructive. BUT: i am more than happy to put this behind us, and sorry for that "tsk tsk". also, it's nice to see someone with a fucking sense of humor around here. :) -badmachine 05:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting and changing cited information to your own personal view point

Thank you JunoBeach (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlinking a word already linked and linking a word not already linked is not "deleting and changing cited information to a personal view point". If you are referring to your other edits, maybe you should look at the history tab of the article; I'm not the one who removed your edits. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Boeing 777

Hi. It's fairly unusual to semi-protect today's featured article, isn't it? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It might or might not be usual, but I think it's fair to say the article would have ended up protected anyways. The same thing happens with Google Doodles. High visibility = incoming wave of silly stuff. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't realized that WP:TFAP was no longer accepted practice. How times have changed.

Perhaps it'd be nice to set up some special AbuseFilter rules for today's featured article. A few smart filters could cut down on the silliness without requiring blocking all edits by unregistered and new users, I think. Semi-protection is such a blunt tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Message from Alfa Uniform Charlie Hockey Alfa November Sierra Alfa

Wikipedia is full of articles about 'The Murder of ___ " or porn stars. Aircraft articles generally are dignified. That is why I am not pushing hard for inclusion of details, such as the Canadian Psycho, to the Airbus CC-150 Polaris article.

However, do consider that if the CC-150 article were new and featured in Did You Know (DYK), the Magnotta fact would likely be the DYK fact, not the wingspan. Yet the wingspan is mentioned in the article.

The above is for discussion but, as I said, I am not so sure we want to infect nice and neat aircraft articles with Wikipedia diseases (like porn stars, video games, and murder of __ articles).

Why is the Airbus CC-150 Polaris article a separate article and not with the Airbus A310 MRTT? We do not have separate articles for the Air Canada Boeing 767 and the Boeing 767.

Auchansa (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The CC-150 and the A310 MRTT are both variants of the same aircraft, but are not the same aircraft; only two of the five CC-150s were brought to MRTT spec. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanting to start a new article on Kyle Peek that has previously been deleted

Hi CharlieEchoTango, I was about to create a new article on Kyle Peek, but it says you have deleted an article on the same name in January. I'm wondering what the article had on there and why it was deleted just in case I do the same thing if I were to create another page. Thanks Dandeldragon (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kyle peek was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7. The content of the article was :

Kyle Peek is an American Musician. He plays drums in the band The Anthemic, which is fronted by 2008 American Idol winner, David Cook. Kyle Peek can also be seen playing drums for the band, Midwest Kings.

Before recreating the article, make sure Kyle Peek meets at least one of the notability criteria for musicians or the general notability guideline. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)