User talk:Arthur Smart/Archive 01

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Arthur Smart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Craig david halsall

Thanks for pointing that out...I've removed the entry once again since our policies are rather strict on that matter (no redlinks for births or deaths on year articles). I left a note on Craig's talk page. Again, thanks! -- Ferkelparade π 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston

Thank you for becoming a participant! Your expertise in the areas you mentioned will surely benefit the project. Please feel free to discuss anything related to the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston and add/update the collaboration items at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston. Also, please add the project banner/article assessment template for every new project-related article you create. The templates are found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Resources. Thanks again,Postoak (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet identification

Hey, and thanks for identifying the other two - they were getting annoying in the Jim Abbott article. --Mosmof (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocol for Handling Warnings

Just in case you're not watching my talk page, my response to your question is here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ________ Note: conversation copied below for my own handy future reference -- Art Smart (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC):

I'm new to issuing warnings. See User talk:C west2640 for my latest "subst:uw-vandalism2" warnings, regarding April 21, April 18‎ and September 2‎. Am I acting appropriately, or should I escalate? If so, how? I'm assuming that there's a bot that detects vandalism warnings, so that those with blocking authority can take appropriate action, but I don't know that for sure. Please advise. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have the right idea. But, as you probably are aware, giving the same warning for subsequent vandalism doesn't make sense. The warnings escalate by number (1, 2, 3, 4). The format is {{subst:uw-v1}}. The first level is a general "welcome, but you did something wrong". The second level is a little less welcoming and is sometimes a reasonable first warning "hey please don't do that". The third level recognizes that the editor probably knows they did something wrong but continue doing it anyway "stop or you'll be blocked". The fourth level is the last warning and tells the vandal "do it again, and get blocked".

For users who have been recently blocked, you can just issue a "only warning" {{subst:uw-v4im}}. For particularly blatant vandalism you can issue a {{subst:uw-bv}} warning.

An important thing to remember is that warnings must be escalated properly to be fair to the user and to support a block. An admin won't block unless a level 4 warning (or a bv) has been left for the user and the user still vandalized. Another thing that needs to be watched is that the warnings are left after vandalism. That might sound simple, but you have to take into account whether it is possible for the user to have read your warning before vandalizing again. Some vandal fighters will leave a warning, then see a new vandalism and immediately leave another warning even if the vandalism took place before the first warning was left (this happens if the user vandalizes while you are leaving the warning). It's not fair and doesn't assume good faith even though you "know" that the user wouldn't pay attention to the warnings anyway. Have a look at WP:TT for more on the user warnings. You can also use my custom date article warnings {{subst:user:Mufka/uw-date1}} and {{subst:user:Mufka/uw-date2}}. I use these because the generic vandalism warnings don't help the user to know what they really did wrong.

Lastly, some of the vandal bots do take previous warnings into account before suggesting users for block but vandal fighters like you put vandals up for block at WP:AIV after the user has violated a level 4 warning. Feel free to ask any questions. I'm glad to help. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely helpful. Thanks for taking all the time to explain everything. Exactly what I needed. Very much obliged. -- Art Smart (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sports Nuggets = Ron liebman

Hi. FYI, I am going to delete the Sports Nuggets socks. They are actually part of the much larger sockpuppet ring, Ron liebman (talk · contribs). The list of socks in those categories are only partial (I have a complete list in deleted contributions). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can report more socks to WP:AIV or to me directly. I'll block them immediately. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aluisios

Thanks for the heads up. --TM 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the [rollback] (which should appear unbloded if you have twinkle installed) link on the lastest diff page which should appear beside the link to the user's contributions. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so very much. From the documentation at this page, it's clear that it will help me tremendously, especially when reverting via BlackBerry when I'm away from my desktop. Reverting via BlackBerry (without Rollback) is quite a pain. Thank you VERY much! Art Smart (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent AIV report

Hey, just letting you know I've removed your post to WP:AIV regarding User:Raphael1, at least for the time being. He seems to have stopped editing for the time being (offline for the night?), in which case we may not see any further developments in the next few minutes or hours. I'll be heading offline for a bit in the near future, myself. Left him a note and will check back tomorrow, if that suffices in terms of admin response for now; if not, feel free to bring the matter back up at WP:AN/I (where it can afford a bit more in the way of discussion -- AIV tends to have a rapid-pace clearinghouse atmosphere). Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna. I appreciate the feedback and the attention to this issue. Art Smart (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

this answers part of your question. I've told him, I'll have it deleted as soon as it touches article space. My nuclear arsenal is at def-con 2 and ready for firing and can be viewed at the bottom of this page --Fredrick day (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've noticed a few comments from that IP address, as long as they don't start sending me panties I'll be alright. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Earth Liberation Front

Message to Proxy User: Regarding this edit of yours, just curious as to why. I wouldn't normally alter someone else's post to a talk page, even if I totally disagreed with it. But I didn't want to roll back your edit without at least checking with you as to why. Please advise. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I thought the comment was asinine, but it's not mine to mess with, so I'll roll it back myself. Proxy User (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the comment was asinine. That's precisely the word for it. Nonetheless, such words are a reflection of the writer and no one else. On the other hand, if someone flagrantly vandalizes a talk page or any other content, that's different, and I would have no qualms if a third party reverted it ASAP. Sort of like washing graffiti off a neighbor's house while the paint is still wet. Anyway, thanks for doing the right thing. Very much obliged. Art Smart (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

204.69.4.82 block.

Not a problem. I have the talk page on my watchlist, so whenever there is a warning given, I'll see it (maybe not right away, but I will eventually). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

The following is in reference to User talk:70.108.92.126:

1)How about u look b4 u leap? I made no unconstructive edits. Ive contributed many times 2 building up the article. My edits RNT vandalism. Im not experimenting so Im not using sandbox.
2)I didnt revert. I combined the new good edits with the past best version of the aticle. It isnt vandalism. Its editing. What about when my work is undone? Pls stop butting in unless u look @ each version. Thank You. 70.108.92.126 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 70.108.92.126, how can you justify taking an article and reversing 14 revisions to that article? You do not own Elisabeth Hasselbeck or any other article in Wikipedia. Please continue editing, but do so with consideration for others. Please do not revert an article (whether you think you own it or not) back to the way you liked it some 14 revisions ago. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, Again LOOOK. I didnt reverse 14 revisions. Some among those 14 were reverts & autobots. I did include the good edits into the version I save. I do consider others. U took out a chunk @ the end which is important 4 understanding y the event is listed under controversy. Did I say I own it? No I didnt. Thanks. 70.108.92.126 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eun Yang

Did u even look @ the edits I made to Eun Yang b4 u reverted them?70.108.115.143 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I looked at your edits, liked them at first glance, but because you circumvented a block (and are doing it yet again right now), I reverted them. I have since looked at them more carefully and was inclined to restore your edits. As you can see at College Hill (TV series), not only didn't I revert your edits, I kept them and improved the article further. I think you are a good-faith editor capable of making many constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and I greatly look forward to collaborating with you once the block is over. However, by again circumventing a block, I shall now begin the reporting process. Please wait for the blocks to expire, and then let's work together as friends. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The first block wasnt justified which is why I am continuing to edit. I asked & waited but no 1 ever reviewed the 1st block. Again, I didnt delete anything. The comments posted were linked. 70.108.115.143 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

wait 4 block 2 xpire

Your first unblock request was denied a few minutes ago. You are welcome to make an unblock request at User talk:70.108.133.61. I know you feel completely justified in all that you have done, and I can see your point of view. The main advice I would offer is to try to consider other people's feelings as well. Admins don't like their blocks being circumvented. I didn't like it when you cut and pasted a warning from your talk page onto mine, making it look at first glance like it was a warning against me. AgnosticPreachersKid didn't like your calling him an ass. None of us, including you, like having our edits reverted. When you kept reverting Elisabeth Hasselbeck back to your favorite version, you may have felt justified, but everyone else who was editing felt insulted. Again, please wait for the blocks to expire, then let's work together and collaborate, letting the very best of our different ideas and perspectives rise to the top. As disputes arise, let's use the article talk page to hammer out a consensus, and then let's move forward. You have been and I am certain will continue to be a great contributor, and I really do look forward to working with you, not against you. Please wait for the blocks to expire. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1)Ah yes now it has been denied. I think only bc I continue editing is y my 1st request was looked @? I thought blocks r looked @ sooner?...Or am i wrong?
2)Thx 4 seeing my POV. I do try 2 consider others. I read the warnings & answered them. Pls look. All my edits do have edit summaries and I dont remove templates. The admin was wrong. He just blocked and didnt look.
3)I didnt call Ag an ass. I said dont be an *ss. There is a difference.
Ag called others the pejoritive "crank" here. Y wasnt he reprimanded\blocked?
4)On Elisabeth Hasselbeck I put her personal section in the Bio section. Y is that bad? I didnt change the page 2 insult other. Dont u think her personal life goes w her bio section? Ive seen this in other articles.
5)Wait? 3 months. I cannot.
70.108.98.5 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

what is personal attack & disruptive editing?

1)Also, what constitutes a personal attack?
2)I said _" dont be an *ss "_ & u all r pissed. Ag called some1 the pejoritive insult crank here, & there was no repercussion. Y wasnt he reprimanded\blocked?
3) Dan called me "bullheaded" and "hi & mighty" here. Will he be blocked ? That is a personal attack. He also threatened 2 block all ISP providers. Threats r allowed?....
. . . I want to be rude as he was & post __" U cannot block me. Their is home internet, wifi, internet cafes, starbucks, tmobile...endless internet possibilites "__ but I dont want 2 let some person who THINKS they r something bc they're a wiki admin get a rise outta me.

4)What is a disruptive edit
5)I moved the personal section into the bio section, how is that disruptive?
6) Have u looked @ the Elisabeth Hasselbeck page history? User_talk:Flyer22 alway reverts others edits. S\he only wants his version 2 stand.
7) I asked y I was blocked? How is that disruptive?
Id greatly appreciate your answers. Its obvious Im not getting something about the blocks & verdicts on my edits. Thx. 70.108.98.5 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am on a BlackBerry right now, so I must be brief. Not 3 months, maybe 2 days. But you MUST quit evading the blocks, like you are doing now. PLEASE! --Art Smart (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back at my PC. Thanks for waiting. I plan to give you a very detailed answer to all of your questions, above, so please continue being patient until I do. But I only have a few minutes to spare right now, so I'll just say what's most important and urgent. Evading blocks is a cardinal sin in wikiland. Blocks can be challenged, as you have tried to do, and failing that, they eventually expire in a matter of hours (for the first infraction). Evading a block removes everyone's obligation to assume good faith. They can then assume bad faith and come down really hard on the evader. What would have been a matter of hours being blocked can rapidly escalate into days, weeks or longer. So first and foremost, please cease evading blocks. Quit editing on Wikipedia (except on this talk page, which I welcome you to continue with) until the blocks have expired. Period. If you can't wait out the blocks, then I'm obligated to report this latest sockpuppet (70.108.98.5), and you can expect the block times to be lenghened. Instead of being the person who reports you and gets you blocked, what I really want is to be your friend and confidant as we both navigate wikiland. I see tremendous good in you and in your ability to contribute constructively. I dearly want to see your potential fully realized. Let's work together, once all this mess is behind us. I can't wait for that to happen, but I must wait. I must wait for your blocks to expire, and then we can do what we really want to do on Wikipedia. Again, I'll write much more later, but I'll check 70.108.98.5 from time to time, and if I see you continuing to evade the blocks, I'll report you. The good news is the future is in your hands. Write me here all you want, but please do not edit elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thanks, my new friend. --Art Smart (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist on this one, Art. Just to let you and anon know, AgnosticPreachersKid was indeed warned about the personal attack referenced above. Dreadstar † 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar. I haven't (yet) looked into any past actions that didn't directly involve me. I'm confident that everyone, especially anon, has learned a lot from these recent past experiences, so arguing about the past as to who's right vs. who's wrong might not be as useful as taking lessons learned and applying them to our future actions. So to the extent that past actions can be analyzed dispassionately to help inform future behaviour, then I'm fine with that. Some of anon's questions will require at least a little research to answer correctly (e.g., formal policies). With the other questions, I hope mainly to offer friendly advice to guide future actions, with emphasis on the future. I consider myself a semi-newbie to Wikipedia, so I'm still learning the formal rules and informal mores. But I'm nearly 55 years old, so I own a lot of interpersonal battle-scars that might help me provide advice that he finds useful. Anon seems receptive, and we all want him to succeed, so I'm quite optimistic at this point. Thanks again for your help. And BTW, Happy Easter to you! --Art Smart (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I just saw "(† is a sword, not a cross.)" on Dreadstar. I hope I didn't offend re: Easter. --Art Smart (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal answers to the questions

1)Also, what constitutes a personal attack?

Wikipedia:No personal attacks has lots of detailed information. It says "in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I need to follow that admonition more closely in the future.

2)I said _" dont be an *ss "_ & u all r pissed. Ag called some1 the pejoritive insult crank here, & there was no repercussion. Y wasnt he reprimanded\blocked?

I have now read your link (which Dreadstar also provided). That whole thread got rather nasty. The answer to your question, "Why wasn't he reprimanded/blocked?" is probably that no one filed a complaint on him, or if they did, the complaint must have been denied. How would we know for sure that he wasn't reprimanded? I did some digging and found User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid/Archive_4#NPA where Dreadstar had reprimanded him, but there may be others I haven't found. But regardless of whether or not anyone else gets reprimanded or blocked for personal attacks in no way can justify personal attacks by anyone else. Best just to stick to commenting on content, not editors. --Art Smart (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

3) Dan called me "bullheaded" and "hi & mighty" here. Will he be blocked ? That is a personal attack. He also threatened 2 block all ISP providers. Threats r allowed?....
. . . I want to be rude as he was & post __" U cannot block me. Their is home internet, wifi, internet cafes, starbucks, tmobile...endless internet possibilites "__ but I dont want 2 let some person who THINKS they r something bc they're a wiki admin get a rise outta me.

He didn't call you "bullheaded" and "hi & mighty", he said, " if you're bullheaded enough to keep going in this direction." He put the word "if" in boldface and italics, just to make sure it would be noticed. He also said, "if you are" before the "high and mighty" phrase. I'm not trying to defend his language, which did take me a bit aback, but the word "if" denotes a future possibility that he's hoping you will choose to avoid. And I'm confident you will. Regarding range blocks, that is certainly within his power as an admin. I'm confident it won't come to that, but it's something he could do if you continue evading his block. I'm very glad you didn't fire back with your "endless internet possibilites" comment. None of us wants to play a cat-and-mouse game. We want to make constructive enduring contributions to articles of interest, and once the blocks expire, that's exactly what we can resume doing. --Art Smart (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

4)What is a disruptive edit

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing has all the answers to that question. It says, "in a nutshell: Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians." One example is, "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." That's why it's best to take disputes to the article's talk page and hammer out a consensus there, before putting the resulting consensus into the article itself.

5)I moved the personal section into the bio section, how is that disruptive?

I haven't reviewed the specific merits or demerits of your individual edits to Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Just in the brief time I've known your editing of other articles, you seem to make many thoughtful appropriate edits (even today as you were evading the first block). My main objection to your edits to Elisabeth Hasselbeck were when you kept reverting the article back to your favorite version, thereby undoing everyone else's edits (including mine). Speaking for myself, I felt slighted, like my edits didn't matter at all. I'm not sure what was the last straw that got you blocked, because there were several things that I and others were complaining about. As for the specific idea of moving "the personal section into the bio section", let's take another look at those details once your blocks have expired. I don't want to edit Elisabeth Hasselbeck until your blocks have expired, because I want you to be able to fully participate in that process. If you can't, then I won't, my friend. --Art Smart (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

6) Have u looked @ the Elisabeth Hasselbeck page history? User_talk:Flyer22 alway reverts others edits. S\he only wants his version 2 stand.

No, I haven't yet looked at it with an eye towards your claim regarding User_talk:Flyer22. Once your blocks have expired, I'll resume working with you on Elisabeth Hasselbeck. As we do, I'll pay closer attention to the civility of others who are engaged in the editing process. You don't know me for very long, but long enough to know that if I have a complaint, I take action rather quickly, regarding you or anyone else.

7) I asked y I was blocked? How is that disruptive?

I don't know for sure which of the complaints was the last straw that got you blocked. But I do know one thing that didn't get you blocked: I learned that blanking one's own talk page is entirely allowed. I thought it was against the rules to remove warnings, but apparently not. --Art Smart (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

thx 4 the answers.Ive more questions

Well thank you very much for all the patient & detailed answers. I @ 1st was ready 2 say "f*ck off" 2 u as well bc of some of your reverts & reports on me. Now Im glad I didnt bc u r here explaining. Many other think the title 'admin' means GOD & ignore questions. So thx 4 anwering. 70.108.98.5 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Thanks for understanding my true intentions. I hope all is well with you, and I can't wait to start working with you from now on. Please let me know when your blocks expire. Thanks, my friend. Until then ... --Art Smart (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you do know that I'm not an admin, right? I can't imagine that I'd ever want to be an admin. I have too short a fuse for that. The job needs someone with much more of an even keel than I have. But whenever I see someone who genuinely wants my input, I'm only too glad to help. Feel free to write here, or if you want more privacy, my e-mail address is on my user page in a couple of places. Feel free to use it, but give me a "heads up" on this page so I know to look for it. Otherwise, I might not find it in my spam filter. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin

You would make a very good admin, and you'd definitely make an excellent mediator. And a belated Happy Easter to you too, I have relatives on several fronts - so I'm open to several sets of holiday wishes...;) Dreadstar † 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Dreadstar. I try my best, but it doesn't always work out as planned. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

tell Ag 2 leave me be pls

Hello, I stepped back as u told me to. Its Wed, block is done.
Ag ( User talk: AgnosticPreachersKid ) is following me ...y? He said 2 leave him alone, dont post on his page ( deleted what I posted on his page then reported me for doing the same 2 my page ),etc. So pls tell him 2 do the same: Dont follow me on wiki.

I do still have those questions for u, I'll post them later. Thx. 70.108.122.159 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is back to making the same edit that is against consensus. There is no following since I already watch the page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am open to the anon user proposing his formatting changes via the Elisabeth Hasselbeck talk page. These tendentious edits are known to have opposition, and therefore should not be made without a talk page consensus. It is fine to make changes to the main article whenever there is no known opposition, but that is not the case here. I fully support the "sprotect" tag added by Dreadstar. --Art Smart (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ag is lying. Look @ page history. He didnt "watch" it til he began watching my post.70.108.122.159 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks, such as "Ag is lying." Let's comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Diego Hartfield and Elisabeth Hasselbeck

The following blockquote is a copy of User talk:Stanley011#Citing Web and News Sources, followed by the continuing conversation:

I noticed in one of your recent changes to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, you removed a properly cited reference and replaced it with an improperly cited reference. I also noticed at Diego Hartfield, that you added an assertion. I briefly tried to substantiate your assertion using Google, but was unable to do so. Please add a citation. Thanks.

Please refer to Template:Cite web for instructions on properly citing a web page, such as the one you referenced in Elisabeth Hasselbeck. For news citations, please instead refer to Template:Cite news. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd combination but regardless, a few things to mention. First, thank you for noting that I did not provide a citation for the fact that Tanya Hartfield, the model, is Diego's sister. Upon doing a google search I found a credible source, though it is in Spanish. Since this man is not really a big time player, and he's not from the US, it would be difficult to find a credible internet source that links the two. I did see him interviewed on the tennis channel by one of the Jenson brothers (I believe it was Luke) where he discussed his model sister--I will cite that when I get a hold of the reference. In the mean time, if you can assist me in finding an internet source I would be grateful. As for Hasselbeck, I deleted your Joy Behar quote about dictionary racism since it is impertinent to the Dahmer/Wright controversy. Thanks and look forward to working with you. Cheers, Stanley011 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was customary when receiving a message on one's talk page, to reply on that same talk page, so that the entire conversation can be read in one place. But now that we are here, I shall continue here. I strongly disagree with your deletion of Behar's quote, and I'm taking the issue to the article talk page where it belongs. Please make your case there, and we'll see what others may have to say on the matter. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, see talk. Stanley011 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a fact tag after an unsubtantiated assertion is not a disruptive edit. Stanley011 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a while back, but as I recall it now, I was objecting to the "fact" tag that you added to "an unsubtantiated assertion" that you yourself had originally made. Seemed silly then, as now. --Art Smart (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1976

Re removing the additional date linking. On the page itself, there is a comment saying link all dates, for date preferences; so does Wikipedia:Timeline_standards (used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Years). This year seems to follow 3 separate styles; indented dupes, link one date, link all dates. I'm minded to change the formatting of all the dates on the page to consistently follow the timeline standard, but I know you're a frequent contributor to the days pages so I thought I'd check with you first, in case there is a more recent consensus I've missed. Bazzargh (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point, and thanks for the links. I've taken a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and you are right, that even the examples given there show some duplicate wikilinks. I've added myself as a participant in that project in hopes of getting a consensus and enact more consistency. At Wikipedia:Overlink crisis#Aspects of overlinking, they give an example of overlinking to be "A link for any single term (other than for date formats) is excessively repeated in the same article. 'Excessive' is usually more than one link for the same term in a line or a short paragraph, since in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen." The Manual of Style also suggests that we try to minimize wikilinks. The original reason for my action in your case was because I'm very used to seeing the first entry being wikilinked and subsequent entries being unlinked. I base that mainly on date articles, and I just assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it also applied to year articles. I'll take a closer look at the issue and see what I can do to establish a consensus and enact more consistency. Thanks for drawing this issue to my attention. --Art Smart (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Wikilinks to 2nd, 3rd, etc., entries? Or just wikilink the 1st?. On that project page, I discovered Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context which discusses this issue. Anyway, I'll let you know what I find out. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Discussion continued here. --Art Smart (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1968

Please note that I have re-done my edit to 11th August 1968 - it was not vandalism in the slightest. To avoid future confusion I have added a link to Fifteen Guinea Special which describes the events to which I was referring. (80.193.99.43 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, and please accept my apologies. It looked like vandalism. I appreciate the correction and the feedback. --Art Smart (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Glad it's all sorted! (80.193.99.43 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Hasselbeck Poll

I noticed that you added the AOL poll information about Elisabeth Hasselbeck. I am suggesting changing the wording of it. Please see the discussion I have started on the discussion page of the article. I would greatly appreciate your input. Many thanks Stanley011 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

My appologies; I didn't start a new disucssion but rather just included it under a current disucssion (Question 28, regarding the AOL poll). Once again I would appreciate your input whenever you get a chance. Many thanks Stanley011 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

Done. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Masters golf entry

Hi. I have added the entry for 2008 Masters Tournament back into 2008 article. A "major" golf chamionship is notable, in my opinion, and has been in the year articles previously. The referenced article does indeed say that the competition took place from 10 to 13 April, and so was indeed won by Trevor Immelman on the 13 April. I hope this is okay with you; if you have any queries, please reply on my talk page. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at Trevor Immelman and found no mention of April, much less April 13. Yes, it's in 2008 Masters Tournament. But since the 2008 entry is about a person, and since that individual must have an article in Wikipedia to have a mention in 2008, I think that person's article should contain all the specific information necessary to corroborate the entry in 2008, or any other year or day of the year. Therefore I've added the April 13th mention to Trevor Immelman. Please advise if you think this an unsuitable solution. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this. I would probably consider that the entry is more about the tournament than the person, but as we are now both happy with the outcome, that's a mutemoot point. I'll have a read of the WikiProject Years' pages, as I've not come across them before. Thanks for pointing them out. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Phillips (poet)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Phillips (poet), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Robert Phillips. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The above warning was due to a brief transitional period where I was trying to get Robert Phillips the poet disambiguated from Robert Phillips the guitarist. All should be cleaned up now. See also Robert Phillips, Robert Phillips (disambiguation), and Phillips for related links. --Art Smart (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2003

Hi, would you tell me why you think the addition I made is not a notable event? I can provide a reference for it if required, but the article should be reference enough. I've got the fact up for a DYK. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Our messages crossed in cyberspace. Please see my comment on your talk page. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I've corrected the article, and readded the info at the correct date - November 26. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very nice article, by the way. I hope it gets DYK. --Art Smart (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mjroots, congratulations on the DYK! --Art Smart (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

warning you sent me

Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you label their edits as disruptive. Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was disruptive, and I reverted it for having been severely malformed. Have you even tried reading it? It looks like a load of garbage. How can you possibly defend it? Next time, use Show Preview and look at it before you hit Save Page. Do a bad edit again, and I won't hesitate to revert it. Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with. Edit responsibly or not at all. --Art Smart (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CSB 080114 BP death Wideview.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Arthur Smart!
We thank you for uploading Image:CSB 080114 BP death Wideview.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved. --Art Smart (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blinded by the k...

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I took a glance at your home page, and I really love your quotation at the bottom: "The problem is not that the world is full of fools. The problem is that lightning isn't being distributed right." -Mark Twain

Awesome! --Art Smart (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting policy

Please review the policy on reverting contributions REVERT#Explain_reverts, you reverted my contributions without any discussion on the talk page, or my talk page. Please refrain from ignoring this Wiki policy in the future. Thanks. Supertheman (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did explain my revert on the talk page. Perhaps you missed it. Please look again. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

You stated on my talk page that you were afraid "...our generation leaving them with a planet in much worse shape than we inherited" and asked for my thoughts on the subject. I certainly do fear for my children vis-a-vis the "shape" of this planet, however I am far more worried about the philosophical, religious and political state than I am the environmental situation. What are your thoughts on the matter?Supertheman (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have known. Pity. --Art Smart (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Random-drive-by-comment:

One would assume that philosophical, religious, and political issues are dependent upon an environment, ground, or stage upon which they take place.

In terms that one who focuses on philosophy, religion, and politics (over the essential environment) would understand: It's distracting from one's contemplation of the Universe if God pulled the carpet out from underneath you and rearranged the country's borders.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As Maslow observed, it's hard to self-actualize if one's basic security is threatened (my paraphrase). The problem as I see it is that it's seductively easy to self-actualize now, as long as one deliberately ignores the basic security of future generations. --Art Smart (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another random observation, keeping with terms that one who focuses on philosophy and religion might understand: Agnostics who pray often say "Well, I pray just in case there is a God. Can't hurt." Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to be concerned about the environment either, you know, just in case the flood is coming. Heck, while on the topic of religion and floods, one guy was deeply concerned about that very same scenario and people who focus on philosophy and religion love that guy. Today, they'd call him nuts... oh, wait, supposedly they did that back then too. Hmm. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Thanks for the comments. --Art Smart (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... so you weren't interested in a discussion and instead simply wanted to mock me with "pity". I believed you were actually interested in a discussion. Oh well, once bitten...

For those of you speaking of needing an earth to live in to be able to do philosophy and religion, I might remind you of the Missiles of October. We came very close to destroying the entire planet that time and the "philosophy" was what helped us back from the brink. If cooler heads had not prevailed and someone had not done a bit of "philosophy" those of us that were left would be wandering a decidedly more polluted planet now (haha, to say that least).

As I'm sure many of you know, right now policy dictates much of the environmental initiatives, agencies and persons involved in trying to keep this planet clean. Policy is predicated on "philosophy", so I'd say the philosophy is pretty important vis-a-vis the environment, wouldn't you say? Supertheman (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the philosophy. Had advisors told Kennedy "Oh, don't worry about that. They're just exhagerating. They're not going to push the button." it probably would have been a different story. Instead they said, "Yes, global warming is a concern that you best address now..." oh sorry, wrong issue... "Yes, those missles are something you best address now" and here we are today. Philosophy is not just about coming up with ideas; it's about the validity of ideas. The idea that someone should just ignore a general consensus in science doesn't make any sense at all. The primary philosophy -- the one that trumps everything else -- has always been survival. That's what Kennedy was operating off, and it's the philosophy at play when dealing with the environment. So yes, very much so, the environment trumps any sort of philosophical, religious, or political idea because survival always has. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try to bait and switch the argument there from the environment to philosophy of global warming, but it doesn't change what I said. Also, you utterly missed the point of my comment. I did not say that philosophy is more important than the environment, I said, "the philosophical, religious and political state" of our earth. Lets try to stay on point, please. Argue my comments, not straw men. Thanks. Supertheman (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was making random comments about what you said ("I am far more worried about philosophical, religious and political..."). If my comments seemed to indicate that I thought you felt philosophy was more important than the environment, it's probably because you said that it was. If I switched the conversation to being about the philosophy of global warming, it's probably because you were talking about the philosophy of missles. It's not my talk page, though, so I'll give it back to Mr. Smart. Enjoy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Try again, I said, "the philosophical, religious and political state" of our planet. I said it was important vis-a-vis the environment. Someone is throwing up straw men *yet again*. Goodness, I agree, time to turn this back over to Art. Supertheman (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A straw man requires misrepresentation. You said: "I certainly do fear for my children vis-a-vis the 'shape' of this planet, however I am far more worried about the philosophical, religious and political state than I am the environmental situation." If you want to argue about whether that means that you felt philosophical, religious and political was more important than the environment, take it to my talk page. Whatever. If you'd like to explain to me why I should care what you have to say about anything, that'd be a good place to put that too. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry for the above, Art. I was just making random observations. I don't know what's wrong with that guy, but this should move away from your page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I moved it to your page, Nealparr. We agree on something after all, I don't know what's wrong with you either. See, we can agree on something!

By the way, you joined this discussion, so if you didn't "care" it seems a bit strange that you would have piped in, doesn't it? Supertheman (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, guys. I really do enjoy the repartee, and I heartily welcome it here, as long as we all refrain from personal attacks. Obviously, Nealparr and I see eye to eye. And even though Supertheman and I appear to have widely divergent value systems, I also welcome his perspectives. Being completely baffled by whatever motivates a wide swath of the U.S. electorate, I value on-point conversation with them as well. Thanks to you both. --Art Smart (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks very much for cite tagging the "garnered support" edit I made instead of simply reverting me. That shows good faith on your part and promotes team work. I'm working on good cites now. There is so much infighting over the article that I thought it was worth taking a minute to say thanks for playing by the rules. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I haven't seen the film, and I strongly suspect your observation is correct. But in the interest of fairness, I wanted you to cite a source. Should be easy. Thanks, and thanks also for the kind feedback. --Art Smart (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush Inauguration Contribution Discussion

Good day Art. I wanted to immediately invite you to contribute your perspective to a discussion I started on Southern Company's talk page about SO's contribution to G. W. Bush's 2nd inauguration. Rather than revert each other back and forth I figured open discussion was best. I appreciate your good faith, civility and outstanding use of edit summaries. Unfortunately the SO article doesn't get much attention so I plan to simply invite the most recent two or three article editors with talk pages to provide their input as well to help reach a consensus. Best wishes. Respectfully, Linepm (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Will do. --Art Smart (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Art. Just a heads up that I invited Editor Beagel to give his thoughts. He is a well-respected contributor to energy related articles and in the interest of neutrality was the most recent SO editor whose either left- or right-wing political leanings were not immediately apparent from their talk page.Linepm (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenna move

Here's some info on how to move a page while preserving its history and creating a move log: WP:MOVE. It's usually best to get consensus before moving a page. Also, if you move a page, you should fix all the pages that linked to it. To do that, you would go back to the original page and click "What links here" (in the toolbox on the left side). I've reverted all four pages involved in your recent attempted move of Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager. Please handle it however you like from here, in keeping with WP:MOVE. Ariadne55 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. She can stay Jenna Bush insofar as I care. --Art Smart (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME says the name of the article should be, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." I believe a valid argument can be made for the article being at either Jenna Bush or Jenna Hager. I'm not concerned about which of the two it ends up at, because the negatives and benefits balance so well. I simply want any move to be done correctly. Also, we don't know if she's changed her middle name, so, to my knowledge, nobody's arguing in favor of "Jenna Bush Hager". Ariadne55 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME pertains to names of all articles, not necessarily people. A more specific guideline is found at WP:NCP. However, that guidelines also seems in conflict with BLP. I have raised the issue at WT:NCP#Is "most generally recognisable" in conflict with BLP?. Please chime in there if you wish. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dell

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are presuming that the comments I edited were legitimate. Not the only mistake on your part. --Art Smart (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, drop the "with all due respect" clauses please. False modestly frequently comes across as patronising and this is definitely no exception. Secondly, while Oni Ookami Alfador is obviously also guilty of this, Don't template the regulars. This includes pseudo-templates accompanied by warning images. Thirdly, what a user does with comments you post on said user's page is irrelevant. If you disagree with the response you receive, take it to a more appropriate channel. Don't go straight back to the article talk page to complain about the treatment you received; your three young children may be a source of endless joy to you, but they are irrelevant to most people on Talk:Dell, as is your opinion of Oni Ookami Alfador's talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Nothing false about "with all due respect." As I wrote, I did so with all the respect that Oni Ookami Alfador is due, namely, with the default assumption of good faith unless/until such an assumption is unambiguously proven false. Best you avoid your own patronizing statements, such as your highly sarcastic "I'm terribly sorry for your accidental funding of the re-election of George Bush." I assumed that it was an error made in good faith, but because you have not since corrected it, apparantly my good faith assumption was wrong yet again. --Art Smart (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

2. You say, "Don't template the regulars." I didn't template any regular. But you are quite right that Oni Ookami Alfador was 100% guilty of doing so, as can be seen at the top of this section. On his talk page, I used an image to draw attention to my warning that he cease his personal attacks. Is there a warning template regarding personal attacks? Please advise, and I'll use it next time. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Using an image made it look like you were using a template. This generally annoys established users. As for an appropriate warning template, again, don't template the regulars. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So you were fooled into thinking it was a template. Sorry for your confusion. --Art Smart (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3. You say, "take it to a more appropriate channel". Please name the channel, and I'll do it in a heartbeat. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:RFM. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats exactly where I'll now take the issue of his repetitive personal attacks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Any more of this on Talk:Dell will be deleted on sight. Just drop it and move on to something more productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

4. You may edit as you see fit in conformity to all guidelines. I shall not be intimidated by any threats from you or anyone else. --Art Smart (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjust your skin depth. It wasn't a threat. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you call it, if not a threat? --Art Smart (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While my general sentiment remains, and I intend to leave the userbox up for heartfelt reasons I will not bore you with, I probably should not have used the template. It was not intended to be condescending or patronizing, and was purely laziness on my part. I would however ask you not to edit someone's comments on a talk page, be them my own or someone else's, unless they are explicitly hostile. More often than not, It is more productive to ask the editor directly. As for the userbox, I strongly reccomend you read WP:DGAF, which it links to. It is merely a fairly obtuse statement of neutrality. While some people do take exception to the language in it, Wikipedia is not censored, and its generally something you have to come to terms with. I will make a recommendation, in good faith, that may take or leave. Either of which is of little concern to me. If you are going to ask someone not to do something, or to change something they have written, it is generally best simply to ask them, not to rationalize it, and not to segue into a semi-related position such as universal healthcare. Simply asking politely is usually enough, and is less likely to come off as tendentious or disengenous.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When I first considered going to your talk page to address your insensitive "Whining about jobs" section heading, I found your DGAF userbox off-putting. That's why I instead addressed the issue on the article talk page. But when you started your personal attacks, I did address the issue on your talk page, hoping in good faith that you might rise higher than your DGAF userbox would indicate. Sadly, I was disappointed again. At least I have the guts to leave criticism on my talk page, even unconstructive criticism. --Art Smart (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not helping to defuse the situation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When repeatedly wronged, I have no intention of defusing the situation. Adjust your own skin depth. --Art Smart (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)