Sorry: You do not have new messages. I left one for soeone else her by mistak, and have just come back to retrieve it. Sorry about that seem to be half asleep this morning. Giano | talk13:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, it is greatly appreciated. Although I am confident that was vandalism, I just want to be careful in case there are any doubts. --Hurricane11103:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a principled stand and doing the right thing. I'd like to point out that Ben launched a fresh round of attacks on Guettarda on his talk page during his block. I removed the personal attacks. Ben reverted and left me a nice little edit summary:
[1]
I think his block should be extended 24 hours. FeloniousMonk08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Considering his vulgar edit summary [[2] and the recent comments at User_talk:Benapgar#On_Guettarda:_For_the_record, which I encourage you to read, the message contained in the block has clearly not sunk in. Extending the block is certainly a better and less disruptive option for the project than allowing him to continue as he is even while blocked or an RFAr, which at the rate he's going is the next stop. FeloniousMonk16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't brought it up on the articles talk page. However, I don't think it would be much of an issue to tag it {{current}}. --Jay (Reply)21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at User talk:Bitola. Then you can stop making arguments based on what is clearly a lie. If you still dont understand, you'll notice Bitola was warned about adding a copyvio and then continuing to do so. If you look at the history of Kumanovo you'll see Akamad has previously reverted Bitola's bad faith edits. Cut the BS. freestylefrappe22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of coincidental fact, I had been looking at that article earlier this evening (or morning, wherever you are located in the world). Since I do enjoy cooking with various garlics, perhaps we could collaborate on the article. Its quality is... questionable. A very broad topic shouldn't be sitting in the peanut gallery. Let us make garlic! —Hollow Wilerding00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i've updated what you said at the AN/I entry there. I'm writing a user rfc right now on him just to let you know, the tone of his voice is concerning to me. karmafist04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bunchofgrapes, Freestylefrappe is disputing my right to add evidence to the RfC page after it was certified/endorsed [3]. Just to make sure everything's on the up-and-up, I am letting everyone who certified/endorsed the dispute summary before I made edits of the changes I made. I added more detailed evidence of my conversation with him, and the concerns it raises, as well as a summary of same, so you should take a look. Obviously you're free to suggest I change what I wrote and/or withdraw your endorsement if you see fit. -- SCZenz22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Freestylefrappe has now threatened to block me for adding information to the RFC on him [4]. (The information I added, incidentally, was about him deleting an entry from the "relevant policies" section of the RFC page.) I am wondering if this may soon be a job for ArbCom. For the moment, can you keep an eye on my talk page in case he actually blocks me? Thanks.
My point is that I'm not trying to cause trouble here. Kumanovo is one of many Macedonian city pages I have created. I have seen repeated references to this "edit war" being a "content dispute." This is not the case. The original reverts were because Bitola was adding copyvios. The last few reverts were because his edits were sloppy- and this is type of reversion is not unprecedented. The very last revert I did, once the RFC had started, was because he insisted on having information that was already covered. I deleted his reference to "about 100,000 residents" because there was already a more exact number farther down the page. It seems to me that the general case that I was uncivil is warranted, but that users can hardly take this RFC seriously with SCZenz and Bitola on the warpath. It also seems to me that checking whether Bitola and Macedon5 are the same person would make sense. freestylefrappe23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You made some comments on the talk page suggesting that you were ashamed of editing this article significantly. You shouldn't feel that way. I love it when others copyedit articles that I contribute to — it gives Wikipedia a much better article than when one person controls everything. Indeed I frequently request others to do major copyedits of my work (I especially like User:Silence's work). I like and agree with your edits, and you should continue. I am not offended at all by them. Keep up the good work. Saravask19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
During Streetlight Manifesto's first peer review you provided some very helpful advice. I have since further improved the article, in particular including your section suggestions (Critical reception, musical style), and have now put it up for a second peer review. I would greatly appreaciate any comments you could provide on my implementations of those sections you recommended as well as any new Peer Review comments. Thanks again for your help. — Ian Moody(talk)14:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was wondering how one goes about posting a picture onto the article they have written. Thank you very much for your time. (Unsigned from User:Jdelpagg)
Please notice the user (you know who) changed the headline name of the message you posted - and this is not the only kind of trouble the user keeps spreading... --BorgQueen02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through the code and I'm quite disappointed how you never code anything Unicode friendly in Process Central. Every other string you've used is missing _T.
Hi, Grapes. I wonder if you could look at today's history on Twelve Days of Christmas and tell me if you think I'm in danger of breaking the 3RR rule. I just kind of landed in this article today and gave it a much needed tidying-up, but I'm dealing (IMO, admittedly) with someone with an agenda and may get into a revert war. There are other editors on this article who might be of assistance, but I want to avoid stepping over the line myself. The problem is that several of the edits might be seen as reverts even though different material was added each time. (Yes, its one of those.) TCC(talk)(contribs)23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We crossed talk pages. I'm not really sure that it was ever thought to be the 12 days leading up to Christmas except by some people in places where the 12 days were no longer observed and who were unaware of the history. The switch to the pre-Christmas season in the article seems to have been a bit of anon vandalism that no one caught at the time [5] Some previous editors cited Frazier to support 12/26 to 1/6, but Frazier himself seems to have confused Twelfth Night (holiday), the eve of Epiphany, with the night following sunset on Epiphany itself, unless he's was just incredibly sloppy in his phrasing. [6] That would naturally throw the reckoning off. (Perhaps, not coming from a liturgical tradition himself, he was confused in that the eve of the feast is counted as part of the feast itself.)
You're quite right about not getting into these things in the first place, but considering some of the articles I've been involved with my tolerance for flakey, left-field POVs that don't deserve serious consideration is considerably attenuated. I think I'm developing an allergy. TCC(talk)(contribs)00:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the same confusion you did Google-wise. Some of it comes from Frazier who, as I said, was confused himself. (And not just here. In his eagerness to syncretize all the world's religious traditions he often played a bit fast and loose. But he's one of the standard reference for syncretists.) The confusion is that the liturgical day begins at sunset as in Judaism, and it always has. When Twelfth Night is called the "night of Epiphany", what is therefore meant is that it's the evening before. But when that's read by someone who reckons the day from midnight to midnight, particularly when this person is a Protestant with no liturgical tradition, it's assumed that it means the evening after, but this is incorrect. ("Eve" = "night", but we now reserve the first for holidays where we know very well that it means the evening before. See also Hallowe'en, "All Hallows Evening", which is also the evening before All Saints Day.) There's no particular significance to the evening after, but the eve of Epiphany is celebrated like Christmas Eve in cultures where it's still observed. (And in the course of doing living history and so forth I've actually been to Twelfth Night parties thrown by enthusiasts. They're always on the night of the 5th, not the 6th.) But I'll be strong and not touch Twelfth Night (holiday) at this time. ;) TCC(talk)(contribs)07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to remove the first link you posted on my RFA. Even SCZenz agreed Locke Cole was wrong. It was bad faith. If he had only removed his name the intentions would be left up in the air but he removed everyone's name. freestylefrappe22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I agree about the 'clarity' issue. I tried to include that in the update I made to the policy by saying that copyvio reverts should only be done after clear explanation of the policy and source of copyright have been given. --CBD☎✉02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's certainly a real sandwich, popular in middle-eastern delicatessens and restaurants. Do you think it qualifies for deletion? What criteria of notability will you accept for keeping an article on a sandwich? A book reference? Ah, one thing I forgot to mention is that the sandwich (or preparation style) may go by another, more notable name (probably in another language). This is just the common, English name. A quick search shows "Arnabeet Mekleh" as the correct name. --Viriditas04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's best to confront your argument now, rather than later, wouldn't you agree? You clearly know more about the deletion process than I do, so this discussion can only help me. I think in this case, an English-only Google search will not show many results. I suppose it would be of interest to search the Arabic Google (sorry, I don't know Arabic) and see how many hits we get. My understanding (and this could be entirely wrong) is that a google test is only one part of afd consideration. Is there another criteria I should confront? As far as I can tell, the recipe is published in various cookbooks about Lebanese cuisine. I would certainly like to expand this article, so your criticism is very helpful. For example, your comments have made me realize that the Arabic needs to be included in the article. Further research is obviously needed. One thing that I've found is that "fried cauliflower" gets about 23,000 hits. I'm going to try to refine that search. With the addition of pita, I get 420 hits, and many references to the cauliflower sandwich variety. I think that solves part of the problem. There may continue to be an issue with the article name, however. --Viriditas05:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moving articles to better titles is always ok in my book. But, I think merging the article with cauliflower would be like mergin Baba ganoush with eggplant, or Neapolitan sauce with tomato. I don't see a reason to do so, although you may have good reasons. Is there an issue with stand-alone Wikipedia articles on ethnic cuisine? I'm just asking, as I haven't followed the issue closely. --Viriditas05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with moving the article to fried cauliflower, as that makes sense (to incorporate the various names for it, which continue to crop up as I search!) but I don't see a pressing need to merge it with the cauliflower article, as it appears to be a distinct ethnic cuisine that could benefit from expansion, both from a cultural and culinary perspective (no reason to categorize the main cauliflower article as "Cuisine of Lebanon", "Cuisine of India", and "Cuisine of Pakistan"). Of course, that's just my opinion, and could be wrong. --Viriditas06:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we can differentiate between the men and the women of this strip, I found that the frequency of the female characters was MUCH HIGHER than of the male ones and thus divided them accordingly. Because it was of a virtually duplicate nature to that strip, I based my strategy on what I saw on the FoxTrot page. by dividing characters into specific groups. —the preceding unsigned comment is byMessy Thinking (talk • contribs) 21:05, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
Based on my time here, pretty much all of Wiki has become arbitrary (and don't even ask about long-term neutrality). It took me a long time to find that page; I wound up creating a duplicate without any knowledge of its existence (Stone Soup (comic)! —the preceding unsigned comment is byMessy Thinking (talk • contribs) 23:28, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. Eddie's, well... Eddie. NSLE's kind of having issues now, so i'm talking to him, but i've found the best way to deal with him is to just put it into perspective. Unlike the billion trolls I seem to be taking on lately, I don't think there's any doubt that Eddie's acting in good faith, albeit in a kind of clueless newbie way. karmafist02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to refrain from editing since last night. The previous edits with the RfA page was taken care of, but I'm still concerned about those accusations. I don't harass people and I certainly didn't mean to do it to NSLE (I know too well the rule: mess with a Sysop and get blocked, especially now the He/She is promoted), but I haven't posted a single comment on His talk page since Christmas. Where do we draw the line between mentioning this user and bothering Him/Her? -- Eddie01:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven knows I've tried to reason with some of these new users. Some are apparently hell-bent on getting their yuks rather than contributing in a positive manner. The problem is an offshoot of the fact that no anon accounts can edit. So, how to disrupt a wiki? Create a bogus account. I've left welcoming and "test1" templates on a lot of these accounts and the users go away, never to be heard from again. I truly believe in not biting newbies. In fact, I go out of my way to help folks who obviously need help. Others, as I said, are here to get their yuks despite being asked not to play around. The whole thing is becoming a real burden, I have to admit. - Lucky 6.904:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're experimenting, but if You truly believe all these account are the same person, request a checkuser on the accounts and notify the IP address when it's discovered. -- Eddie04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no up to date scientific sources for Bigfoot research.
Newsletters are all there is. You want to lean on old, out of date books, by people
who never saw a Bigfoot? Or shall we quote tabloids?
I'm surprised to learn that regular users can no longer see a page's deletion history. I'll try to find out, but I seriously don't know why regular users lost this privledge. If and until it's restored, their will be no way to see who deleted a certain page and why, which might lead to such pages being recreated by unsuspecting users. It's a real shame. -- Eddie06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a temporary situation, while the developers work on giving admins better way of cleaning up old histories - and especially old edit summaries. The problem was, vandals were putting slander and other unpleasant material into their edit summaries, and even deleting the pages wouldn't hide that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they'll think of a way to hide those and perhaps pull a certain edit for good while keeping the page up. It would prevent vandals from reverting a page to that edit. -- Eddie14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I was promoted with a final tally of 31/1/1. Don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can assist. Latkes have been successfully assimilated too! --BorgQueen21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Mandy Moore page that you contributed to has information on it
contributed by a very abusive Wikipedia user named 'Parys'.
Parys has been deliberately putting up false info about Mandy's
forthcoming album that he know is wrong here and on Mandy's
official message board where the 'Mandy esxperts' realized he
was lying.
So far, 2 of the Wikipedia pages he created or contributed heavily
to have been deleted by administrators. Yet, he somehow has gotten
them to be revived again using some sort of trick that may have
involved 'merging' ( i am not very familiar with Wikipedia
terminology).
Parys also got an administrator to ban the ip address of the
main branch of the Los Angeles Public Library that has around
100 computers that have internet access. There are 1000s of people
who use these computers and they will no longer be able
to edit Wikipedia pages as a result of this action. I beleive,
but am not positive about this, that he may have already, or will
soon, also ban the ip address of the UCLA library computers,
which will also prevent 1000s of people from editing Wikipedia pages.
Parys is also the author of a book that is pornography about
teenagers called 'High School Whore'. I mentioned this just
so you can get a glimpse of the sort of personality he has.
He has also threatened several wikipedia users on his talk page
and has threatened people on Mandy's official message board.
If you need further links or proof of how the information he
is putting up is wrong, you can send a message to the wikipedia
username i recently created 'quirkywiki'.
The misinformation that Parys is putting up about Mandy's
forthcoming album could cause her to lose album sales, and
to lose money as a result of that. Mandy has strong legal
grounds for suing Parys for harassment, and since you are also
now contributing to this deliberate misinformation, she could
also sue you. So, please stop, for your own legal protection.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that
Parys tricked you into helping him by lying, the way that he has tricked others.
Keep in mind... I have yet to be banned...AND i dont vadalize pages... But I am an awful person.
Parys
Certainly the potential for an explosive lawsuit for saying "Mandy Moore's next album will be named Foobar", when it isn't, seems low. That said, if there aren't good sources for the information, get rid of it! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a first draft of some of the information that i will
be submitting to multiple administrators:
Parys Blocked 1000s of Library Users From Wikipedia
Parys managed to get blocked the main ip address of the 100 or so computers at the main branch of the Los Angeles Public Library. There are regularly 1000s of people who rely on these computers for internet access and now none of them can edit Wikipedia pages anymore. Several days ago i made Parys very aware of what he did, and yet he has taken no steps to contact the administrator who did the blocking in order to get the block removed.
Since i had previously edited his incorrect information from a computer in the UCLA library, i think that it is quite possible that he also blocked the ip address of the many computers in the UCLA library which, again, will prevent 1000s of people from using Wikipedia on those computers. It is possible that he also got blocked several other ip addresses that were used to correct the incorrect information on his pages. Would somebody please let me know how to get these ip addresses unblocked so that these 1000s of people can start using Wikipedia again. I feel that Parys, himself, should be permanently blocked as a result of his very malicious behavior.
Also, Parys' original 'Once Moore' had gotten deleted by an administrator after a period of discussion in which everyone, except for Parys, beleived that the information was incorrect. Yet, Parys somehow has managed to get the page started up again, i beleive he may have used some Wikipedia technique called 'merging' to do this.
Parys has also made threatening remarks on Mandy Moore's message board.
He has already proven himself to be a liar by claiming he heard the Hey! song on the radio. People on Mandy's board proved him wrong about that.
Also, here is absolute proof that Hey! will NOT be on Mandy's forthcoming album:
Mandy has repeatedly said that she has either written, or co-written, every single song on her forthcoming album. She has also said, on her official message board, that James Randle, who also her wrote her 'Cry' single, was the sole writer of Hey!. Therefore, using simple logic, it is plain to see that Hey! will not be on her forthcoming album, and that it will, therefore, not be released as a single. Mandy actually put the demo of Hey!, which she described as being a 'crappy demo' on her website as a freebie for her fans. Parys keeps saying on Wikipedia that the song was removed for 'legal reasons', yet Mandy never revealed the reason why the song was removed after being on her web site for around a year and a half.
Parys has also proven himself to be a liar when he claimed he was told, by the people at UCLA, that they were going to have me expelled for editing his Wikipedia pages. The people at UCLA know that the computers in the UCLA library, that were used to edit Parys' pages, do NOT have to be logged into. So, how could they possibly expel someone when they do not even know who it was that did it?
Parys has, repeatedly, done malicious things to make people waste their time and energy. He also may have cost Mandy a loss in income by informing people that a song (Hey!) that she considers to be merely a 'crappy demo' was actually going to be the single from her next album. People who do not like the song may get the impression that the rest of the upcoming album may also be 'crappy' and not buy it as a result. As a result of this false information that Parys keeps putting out, despite the fact that he knows fully well that it is erroneous, Mandy has good cause for suing Parys, and the other people who keep putting up this flase information on Wikipedia, for harassment. I am hoping that this can get settled by administrators of Wikipedia putting a permanent end to this, Parys seems to enjoy the 'cat and mouse' game of restoring his pages every day after they have been edited.
If the action i just proposed is not sufficient to stop Parys, and those that are helping him, then it will be necessary to inform Mandy's managers and law firm and they may advise Mandy that it would be a good idea to sue Parys and the others who are restoring his pages. While Mandy may have a 'sweet and wholesome' public image, i can guarantee you that her manager and her lawyers do not, and they will not have any qualms about litigating, especially if it helps them earn more money.
So, i hope that everybody who is helping Parys is aware that they could, in the future, be subject to a lawsuit by Mandy if they continue in their actions, especially now that they have been fully informed that they are contributing to erroneous information that could have a negative impact on the sales of Mandy's next album.
I will be reporting Parys to multiple adminstrators until he finally stops what he is doing.
Why does User:Dreamguy say that 4 links are in violation of WP:NOR,WP:V,WP:NPOV,
the SAME links you have approved for use youself, and left a offensive comment on the Bigfoot
discussion page. I am really beginning to actually believe that User:Beckjord is right about this guy. See Skeptic. Martial Law04:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT trying to prove, nor disprove the creature's existance, just stating what people will do when this thing appears before them, no more, no less. Martial Law04:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught to be polite. And I was raised as a military brat(jargon for a soldiers' kid).
My dad was in the military, as were some uncles, and my Granddad was also in the military, some of my other kin were in the "alphabet agencies", thus I was also taught to be extremely secretive, thus I don't even give out my contact info. at all. Some were even Fugitive Recovery agents, thus explains further my secretiveness. Been told that civilians would not understand this at all, by my kinfolk. Some are still in law enforcement, and I also have contacts in law enforcement.
I have seen things that are really hard to explain as well.
I am here to contribute to this fine format, NOT trying to prove the existance of a cryptid, nor trying to disprove its existence either.
Can you load a image of a dove holding a olive branch on to User:Dreamguy's Talk page, along with this message ?
To User:Dreamguy,
I wish I could've met you before I had met User:Beckjord. My intent is to contribute to this fine encyclopedia, NOT trying to prove, nor disproving the existance of a cryptid. Thus is the reason I had placed the 4 links on the Bigfoot discussion page, not on the article itself, so that they can be examined before placement. Since you are more experienced in these matters, I am looking foward to working with you. This may sound offensive,etc. to some, so I'm initiating a early apology for this: How will User:Beckjord react when he sees the two of us working together ?
I have Google Searched everything on Bigfoot to keep it WP:NPOV and NOR and WP:V.
That is how I found out about people who will shoot at this thing(Until WE know what it is),
some New Age sites about Bigfoot, some religious sites say it is a demon. Its amazing what you find when you do a google Search on Bigfoot.
One other thing, when I have stated the facts as to what this "thing" is, someone makes a mess of them. I'll restate them.
Again, am looking foward to working with you, and my intent is to contribute on Wikipedia, NOT prove that a cryptid exists, nor to prove it does not either.
If I get a bad link, let me know. I'll place future links on the Discussion page until they're examined persuant to Wikipedia protocol.
One other thing, I do NOT let my paranormal experiences cloud anything at all.
Sorry, but I don’t know what are you talking about. My only bigger adds to the Republic of Macedonia article are these: [7], [8]. I added very little text and 3 pictures made by myself. I also did another edits after that, but that was done in order to incorporate the pictures in the article (these edits are marked with bolded “m” because are minor edits).My last edit was on 08:57, 28 December 2005 [9]. Since then, I didn’t make any single new edit to the page! I know that the same day someone made a large input to the page using the following anonymous address:212.110.79.199 (If you doubt that I anonymously made these adds, please make any neccessary checks in order to verify that the anonymous address is different from the one I used before). I also noticed the large input to the page but I decided not to involve in the edit war. I just added the following observation on the article talk page:[10]
--Bitola08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to alert User:Dreamguy to THIS development. User:Beckjord is forming a organization of Wikipedians of some sort. WAFE is this: Wikipedians After Fair Editing. Consider this my first commitment to work with User:Dreamguy. Also have him to remove this section on his talk page:
Re.: Martial Law. IF User:Beckjord sees this, a ally of his sees this, it could be used to further his cause. I may be a mess on Wikipedia, but I do NOT want to see a civil war taking place on this fine site. I do not know how many has joined this organization. It could be none, it could be nearly all of the Wikipedians. I have reminded him about this sort of thing, such as the Edit Wars many times. User:Dreamguy, now more than ever, I really do need your assisstance. Martial Law08:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Am investigating the matter. Got a E-mail from him on WAFE, going for website info. Will let you know.
Have someone relay your reply, or Beckjord will know we're on to him. Using skills picked up in upbringing. Even if Beckjord is tossed, his WAFE people will be around to give this encyclopedia problems for years to come. Have your runner say that "Bunchofgrapes wants to see you." on my talk page. Martial Law11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really do apologise if I had caused any inconviences. Can User DreamGuy show me where exactly in
WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V where I am in error, so that any errors can be corrected ? I'm no idiot or anything of that sort, just hate wading through a lot of unnessessary jargon. Been here 3 months myself, thus I may still be a "newbie". Can you suggest a reference, so that I can read it anytime, so as to not inconvience anyone with a lot of questions(Been told that there is no such thing as to many questions by another user.) about some of the jargon used here ? Martial Law05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Bunchofgrapes, we all make mistakes. Actually, I learned many things from the Kumanovo dispute and I’m trying not to repeat some mistakes I made handling that issue. Happy New Year, see you next year:)--Bitola16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I prolly went overboard when I said "official". I just wanted to put City in order to point out that it refers to the one downtown and not the one in Grand Central. -- Eddie17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie you can't just change the name on a whim. The official name of the museum is New York Transit Museum. Someone is going to have to change this back. Eddie please do research before making such large changes. You may well know of the museum as NYC transit museum but it is NOT the official name. I do agree, however that the transport system in NYC is offically called New York City Transit but that is a different entity. David D.(Talk)18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too thrilled about hearing "very bad" on My talk page. I do apologize but I didn't have bad intentions when I did it. -- Eddie18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Buy the way, the New York Transit Museum in grand central station is an annex of the downtown New York Transit Museum. They are the same entity. David D.(Talk)18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to have them on the same page too. The Grand central station musesum is run by the same organisation so the merge makes a lot more sense. David D.(Talk)18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Someone please tell wikipedia to alert Me when I get logged off. Also alert anonymous IP users to sign on/create account after cliking "Save" before edit gets saved. My battery is low, talk to You later. -- Eddie19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I won't be the one to do it. I might consider a request. If you disagree, then I will have nothing to do with it. -- Eddie20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see You have a habit for putting those AfD tags on pages. I was wonder if You ever notify the page's creator or if their was a Request for Verification process? -- Eddie21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't notify the pages creator: I figure that if they care, they have the page on their watchlist. The AfD process is a verification process; that's why we admins don't just delete pages we don't like immediately. Instead, the community discusses it for a while. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your congratulations. It's also good to be reminded at times that people are very seriously looking over my contributions. You don't want to get too sloppy around here! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Not only was your FAC behaviour outrageous, but I continue to believe something very funny is going on between you, Winnermario, and DrippingInk. This business about Winnermario giving you her IM account, which she originally got from her brother strains all credulity. The business about DrippingInk nominating you by "surprise" and you filling out the nomination questions in seven minutes flat either strains credulity or indicates that you didn't answer the questions very thoughtfully. And the weird, content-free complimentary exchanges both you and DrippingInk and you and Winnermario have exchanged on your talk page give me a very bad feeling.
None of which make you a bad editor. Sockpuppetry or not, whatever's going on, for the most part you do a good job. But I do not feel like I could trust you — there's some web of weirdness about you — and that's my most important criterion for adminship. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are insulting. User:Winnermario has logged on ONCE since she announced her departure from Wikipedia, and I only know her from another website. User:DrippingInk and I are merely neighbours. You may believe whatever you want in regard to the three of us, that being we're all sockpuppets of each other or whatever. The truth is, you will never really know, and only we will. We're three very different users who have similar but not identical interests. Anyway, your last message truly upset me, so I hereby declare my retirement from coversing with you. Please do not bother contacting my talk page from this comment forward. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there is something very wierd here, why does your page keep appearing when I want's Bishonen's - have I had too much chianti? Giano | talk12:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How upsetting. Has there been some kind of Putsch? I shall pack up my consonants and vowels and leave quietly; perhaps I can take take exile in some more tropical, less fractious wiki... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for my "friends" language she can't help it she's foreign, but I am a teaching her de English but it slow work. Now get back to copyediting my beautiful love story Bishonen, or you won't have beautiful dreams tonight Giano | talk21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not block my account again. Since you blocked my first account (Cruz AFade), and accused it of being a sock puppet of Hollow Wilerding, I had to create the reincarnation, Cruz Along. I was merely attempting to explain how I am not in any way related to Hollow Wilerding's sock puppetry and the fact that I now own her computer had better not place me in jeporady. I fully understand the constitution of Wikipedia and the policy no legal threats, but due to the fact that I uploaded an image of myself on the other account enforces me to take legal action. If I am not allowed to have an account on Wikipedia, then there is no reason to let my picture sit there. Simply removing it will not do you any good; as I am not a sock puppet of Hollow Wilerding, a female, I have the rights to edit the articles I choose to, even if it means that we have a few similar interests. (Did Hollow Wilerding ever edit The Island?) I plan to edit on Wikipedia to have myself satisfied, and if you do not wish me to, you're going to have to ignore me rather than simply labelling me as a sock puppet of the teacher I once had at my school every single time. I would like to move my belongings from the first account including my picture over to this one. Cruz Along18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock puppet! I am a neighbour of hers and wish to work on some articles. Please let me be and if you do, you'll realize that I'm not a sock puppet. I do have an interest in Gwen Stefani, but I will stray from those articles for a long period of time just to prove to you that I am not what you are assuming and accusing me of. –Cruz Along(Speak about it | How many?)18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a logo for the game show. The logo image was created using a screen capture from the DVD playing program. I was wondering it that's okay with You. -- Eddie11:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can use that screenshot as a fair-use image in the Get the Picture article, and only in that article. I changed the image license to the fair-use {{tv-screenshot}}. You should be very careful to never release images as GFDL if you didn't create them. Thanks for checking. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have other game show screenshots and I'll put that license tag on future screenshots when I upload them. -- Eddie03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bunch, when you are in the mood for a little distraction, you might want to have a look at Cubeb, one of the articles I am currently working on. --BorgQueen21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right, but what I wonder is why do men as ugly as them get the women, while those of us with rather better looks...........Giano | talk08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ho beeootifulla ladees, what is it you wanna know about me....I'm sure there is a foto of me somewhere in the archives I go see if I can find it........Giano | talk11:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grapes, sorry to be dragging you into this and if you prefer not to get involved I'd fully understand. The above image was tagged with {{CrownCopyright}}, but the copyright notice at the source website (yes, it's the website for the British Royal Family) doesn't seem to actually permit free republication. I therefore listed it as a copyvio here Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 January 6, but User:Alkivar removed the {{imagevio}} tag from the image, and when I replaced the it User:Jtdirl immediately reverted. I've asked for some kind of supporting evidence that this image was OK to use on both users' talk pages and on the copyright problems page, telling them I'd withdraw the nom if I was given something credible, but have received no reply at this point. (Crown Copyright is pretty clear that this is not like the PD status of works by the US Government.) Rather than get into a revert war, I'm hoping that another admin might be able to reason with them more successfully. TCC(talk)(contribs)22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. An acknowledged expert opinion would be most valuable whoever he says is correct here.
I have no significant prior history with either of them that I can recall. I have a vague recollection of having been on the same side of a discussion as User:Jtdirl at some point, but I don't think we interacted much if at all. I haven't nominated all that many copyvios or been much involved in related discussions, so if there's resentment over something I've done in the past I couldn't say what it was. I could easily have forgotten something though. Often these days I feel like Barliman Butterbur. TCC(talk)(contribs)02:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm backing away from this one myself. It's on the copyvio page and I assume that's all that's necessary to deal with it even if the image itself is no longer tagged. To get it tagged again would require a war, and it's just not worth it even if anything was. I think Jtdirl's reaction shows he's not about to back down himself no matter who tells him otherwise, even if he has no evidence to show on his part.
Ironically, it was a userbox I created that made me notice this image, and it was even in that mass TfD the other day. My discovery that there was in fact no license inherent in the copyright was something of a surprise, but I fixed the box soon as I could. There were originally 3 versions of the file. As soon as I pointed out the copyright page to the admin who had uploaded the former current version he deleted it and was thankful for the information. I certainly didn't expect this kind of reaction from others. And the only reason there are two of them mad at me is because I thought it courteous to notify the uploaders of both remaining versions, both of which were copyvios for different reasons.
I understand what you mean about images. There's nothing wrong with them in principle, but this being the Intarweb there's this mentality (unconscious in many cases, I'm sure) that if it's out there it's somehow available for whatever you want. But it would be a poor encyclopedia if it completely lacked them. TCC(talk)(contribs)04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you did! Oh yeah, we also had the crayon incident. My memory must be going the Barliman Butterbur route just like TCC's. (I could plead that I don't recognize your nickname since the regal change, but it would be a foul lie.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you don't appreciate seeing your vandalism labelled as such. The fact that you would render logical wording illogical (without, for example, thereby bringing the passage into conformance with an illogical artefact of grammar) does not encourage me to attempt much disputation with you.—the preceding unsigned comment is byGamahucheur (talk • contribs) 04:03, January 9, 2006 (UTC)
The trick is to get a good adjective, though. Here they all are. I only like -6, -5, -2, and +1, really. Maybe I'll edit the rest to get some zany adjectives--cool, horny, arcane? Vulgar? Baroque? Spectacular? Incredible Hulk? Bigfoot? Bishonen | talk05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
A good source of inspiration is the elegant, artistic Boschmeter: 1) Getting babes 2) Feeling earthly 3) In WikiHell 4) Being eaten alive by the bird-headed monster --BorgQueen17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's also a run-on sentence after that phrase. "...from one another, and..." would be correct, as there are two independent clauses on either side of the coordinating conjunction. I would have thought the original objector was hyper-English and trapped in the 1920s, but then his comment here made me think that any grammar he achieved was a simple matter of chance. Geogre11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Run-on shmun-on... I've copyedited the bits around there some, deleting some redundancy too (note that the entire little history intro para is or should be redundant with the more detailed info in the section, so going minimalistic there doesn't lose information.) Wikimood: 3i-2, "slithy". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the image Image:DCMap.jpg? You didn't take the picture yourself, obviously, so you can't release it as GFDL. Remember all our discussion about how you should ask someone before you upload an image you didn't make yourself? Anyway, where exacly is the image from? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used Google Earth in conjunction with a screen capture program to get the map. I removed the GFDL, put an IFD tag and left it up to other editors to decide whether should stay since I have no idea what the license tag should be. -- Eddie21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it; it's a clear copyright violation. Eddie, that's the sort of thing that can get Wikipedia into hot water. Screenshots and DVD captures are ok as "fair use" in an article about the program or DVD being captured from, but grabbing satellite photos from Google Earth (or almost anywhere else) is wrong. And never, ever, ever put the "GFDL" tag on an image you didn't make youself, unless if the people who made it say it is GFDL. You are going to have to learn how these copyright issues work if you are ever going to be an admin. Or if you are going to continue to upload pictures at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're all from the USGS. See [11]. They do want a mention, of course, so what you told Eddie about the image description is well taken. PS - The maps available on that site are all USGS Topo maps too, so those are also PD. They're very often not current, and sometimes they're forced to put maps of two different series next to each other in the mosaic to make a complete map for the area covered, and that's not pretty. But it is free. TCC(talk)(contribs)02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a reasonably thorough look at the RfC on freestylefrappe, and I thought I'd mention that I noticed you always remained fair and civil, even when provoked. Nice going! Peace, delldot | talk22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I have re-worded my addition. Please let me know what you think. Yes best was foolish-I have replaced it with most recent. I am an entomologist in Belfast working on several wiki sites but at the moment with forensic entomologists in several countries (towards identification guides).There is a real need for easily accessible technical information in this field and students (increasingly all workers)cannot afford books hence this (Wiki)route. I am hoping to get your piophilid page translated into at least French, German, Spanish and Italian.I will soon send a list of other pages I have worked on for more advice if you have time to give it. Best wishes from rainy Ireland Notafly09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. I hope doing these things will help pave the way for a successful RfA in the future. I just need help honing my editing in places I am weak. --Eddie11:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, 'grapes. Given the escalating situation on Bigfoot, I've decided to go ahead with an RfC on Beckjord's behavior. It's located here and is not yet "live". I want to be as thorough as possible, and as you can probably guess, collecting diffs is a tedious task. Your help would be greatly appreciated. If you do help out, please edit only the evidence sections, and don't sign or endorse anything just yet. Other than that, make changes as you see fit. Thanks. android7902:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you review Wikipedia's guidelines on biting newcomers Bunchofgrapes, and cease with the jabs. As a English-based Wikipedia administrator, your negative attitude, and hostilty to newcomers doesn't help. It also does not help you to be approachable because of the kind of things you say above as an administrator. Suggest you behave, please, and assume good faith with new Wikipedians. A month is 30 days, Bunchofgrapes, and not a very long time, and you haven't been much help from the get-go. Please keep your poor attitude, biases, assumptions, and negative one-liners to yourself, and pretending you know me. You do not. A month may seem like centuries to you, but to us Wikipedia newcomers, it is not very long at all. Try being of some positive help to us rather than coming off as a cynical snob, because that's how you come off to us "naive newbies." I could use your help on some matters. Questions, better ways to do things, etc. But, You haven't been of much help as a Wikipedian admin to us "naive newbies", as you call us. I'm a 19-year veteran journalist, and you know, there are reporters in here, Bunchofgrapes, who do publish outside Wikipedia, on Wikipedia as a subject. Please try a softer tone, and be of assistance. I've made some common mistakes here, and could've used more guidance from an admin like you. A more open approach would have reduced those mistakes. That may help us newcomers - and Wikipedia - more than you know. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Theo02:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've gotten my goat. Good job. Advice:
Stop edit warring. That means if you find yourself wanting to revert back to an older version of the article that you preferred, don't.
Stop attacking people for being young, ignorant, inexperienced, or whatever. Focus on the edits, not the editor. That includes focusing on your own edits, rather than your own credentials.
When you tell people that you shouldn't have gotten a 3RR because it was a software glitch (something you have claimed twice now, and in both cases you had four reverts on two separate articles over more than 10 hours), it makes me think you are being dishonest. The first time you claimed it, I showed you the diffs, showed you how they were spread out over hours, not all at once like a glitch might cause, and you seemed to understand. Then, a couple days ago, you went on another revert war, and, once blocked, again claimed it wasn't fair because it was a software glitch. You could see where that would get me thinking "maybe he now knows that's not true; after all, I explained it to him before. He's a smart man. Maybe he's telling tales to garner sympathy." If I'm wrong about that, sorry. But in any case, you are edit warring, and complaining that the 3RR blocks are unfair is wrong one way or another. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [12] Thank you. --Chris Brennan06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, hello there, Chris — I actually came here to mention that I've posted an outside view on it. :-) Bunch, you may want to fix up the "view" above mine — you know, with that "unsigned" template of yours, or whatever? The person was trying to sign but misunderstood the instructions, and it's a little untidy altogether. Bishonen | talk16:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Just FYI, there's {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}}, the only difference being in which order they take the username and date parameters. I usually subst{{unsigned2}}, which takes them in the "right" order for convenient copy/paste of lines from histories or diffs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is very foul-smelling - I had it poured under my door as a prank when I was in college. I did a hasty edit, however - farther down the page the acid is mentioned, but not referred to the etymological root. Welcome to fix...(combine the edit with the later material). Carrionluggage 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup - it would be hard to refer the later appearance back to the etymology. But why remove the remark about the smell? So as to avoid giving hints to pranksters? Carrionluggage00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...you're going to put one diff in an Rfarb, you certainly picked a nice one. It was helpful of you to paste the content in your statement, too. Just in case anyone didn't scroll down and see what you were talking about. :D Nicely done. KillerChihuahua?!?23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short and ... short, that's me. Others have recently said of me, "seems to enjoy being cynical with one-liner comments". Too many people try to win arguments by sheer volume of text. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at how citations are supposed to be made but couldn't seem to get it to work. Thank you for correcting my citation and thus permitting me to see how it is supposed to work. Now I can see how the image coding works too. Nygdan 1-18-2006
You appear to have accidentally created a new page, User=Nygdan, while trying to leave a message on a user's talk page. Please move this message to the correctd page and submit User=Nygdan for speedy deletion as the only contributor. - Pureblade | Θ03:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You blocked User:Jackjohn for various reasons like adding nonsense. Not sure if you care but s/he seems to have returned as User:Johnnysfish and User:Coolboy2006 - similar images, similar nonsense. I've already listed four of "their" images for deletion and deleted one of "their" articles. I'm not positive they're the same person as they seem to vandalize each other's pages in similar ways and then leave them vandalized - and don't complain to anyone. Maybe they're friends or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bunchofgrapes, I have just recently came across some information pertaining to Erik Beckjord. On his page he mentions that he was a guest on the Late night with David Letterman. Well, I happpen to stumble upon this website that lists the show. It has a positive date, August 19, 1986. I was wondering if I should add it or have someone, like you add it. Here is the website: Letterman EpisodeMarcusTCicero05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your last comment on the Theodore7 Talk Page under the header "Profanity" contains the sentence "Just FYI, Wikipedia is censored for the protection of minors,...". Surely you meant "Just FYI, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors,..."? Spike09:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you noted on Piedras Grandes talk page not to put good/bad/small labels on the articles, and that there is an "article validation" feature being developed. Where can I find more information about this? I think it would be interesting because most of the articles I have started (labelled on my user page) have never been edited by anyone else and it would be interesting if anyone (maybe nobody?) who did drop by ticked a box or something to see if the article is good, bad or somewhere in between. Regards,Blnguyen03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t@)
And so happy Christmas... Best wishes from Heidi and Joe
