User talk:Cmprince/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with Cmprince. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - ... (up to 100)

RFC

Very sorry - I don't know how I did that. You are right - I was only intending to change the Josh Wolf description to what I thought was more neutral. Did not mean to step on that other entry and don't know how I managed to do it. I've reinstated it. Thanks for catching it - it was unintentional. Tvoz |talk 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try consensus

Instead of engaging in an WP:Edit war over the Fairfield County, Connecticut article, why not just let me do what I said I'd do on the talk page and let it grow into a fuller history of the county. I need time to get to the library and get some books I can use. OK? And it is Fairfield County centered, not Connecticut centered. Noroton 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for help

Thanks for helping out after I flubbed title of Eric Etheridge page. I did not know how to fix. Tom Wood 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Abidjan

Thanks for this. As you might have noticed, I am fairly new to Wikispace, so do tend to stumble a bit. With the article on Abidjan, I wonder if you might be able to help there.

I picked this up from "articles requested for trasnlation" project for french to english, which was made on 11/07. however, I too noticed that there already existed an article on Abidjan in english. Unfortuntely, the user who made the request seems to be unregistered ans so I cannot confirm what they were looking for from the translation - as in complete rewrite in english, or campare and improve.

A user who responded to my help request yesterday suggested I do the translation and submit it to someone to check against existing english version to compare, and they can decide which is the better of the two...

I don't mind (well, not much anyway!) :-) if the one I am doing is deleted/not kept. Since I am a bit scared of creating a new article just yet, this might end up being good practive for me in the long run!

Any suggestions/input to this idea is welcome. Please advise whether it is the right thing to do....

Once again, thanks for the subpage part....

--Mayalekhni 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Fairfield County, Connecticut

You've violated WP:3RR on the Fairfield County, Connecticut article. Please change it back immediately or be reported.

First revert (in two edits):

19:28, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Fairfield County, Connecticut (→History - whitespace; also, this article is about Fairfield County, not the state-wide Klan presence) 19:26, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Fairfield County, Connecticut (→Ku Klux Klan in Fairfield County - distill to the essential facts)

Second revert:

21:30, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Fairfield County, Connecticut (Reverted 1 edit by Noroton to last revision by Cmprince; Sorry, but this *is* CT centered, and there does appear to be consensus on talk.. using TW) (top)

Third revert:

21:30, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Fairfield County, Connecticut (Reverted 1 edit by Noroton to last revision by Cmprince; Sorry, but this *is* CT centered, and there does appear to be consensus on talk.. using TW) (top) Noroton 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this nonsense Noroton. The 19:26 and 19:28 edits were not reverts. Cmprince 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review the history: I'm trying to work out a consensus with other editors. You come in, not having participated in the discussion, and toss everything around. I refer you to the talk page and revert, pending conclusion of the discussion. You revert back with abrupt and snide comments then go to Wikiproject Connecticut. I remind you of 3RR, you call my reminder "nonsense". Then you call me uncivil.

First, as soon as you realized there was an ongoing discussion, you should have stepped back on the article page and engaged in the discussion on the talk page. Give the other parties time to see what I wrote and respond to it. Actually look at what I wrote (before you came to the discussion, especially my last comment just before you came in) and actually respond to that. That's called building consensus, not railroading through your own edits. I'm more than happy to try to build consensus. When do you propose to start trying? Noroton 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I called it nonsense because it's bad-faith to call my edits a reversions just because you didn't like them. As you said, I just came in. I read the talk page, saw the discussion, agreed with the consensus and was bold with my edits. I didn't remove any content, I just moved it off the article which everyone (excepting yourself) seemed to think was a good idea. And yes, having read your contributions and your made up charge of violating 3RR, I don't think you're being terribly civil. Cmprince 04:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't bad faith, it's in the language of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#What is a revert?:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.

First one you did comes under the definition. It's not bad faith, it's my view of what the facts actually are. Being bold with the edits doesn't entitle you to run roughshod over consensus building. See paragraph 2 of WP:BOLD: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one popular way to use the "Be Bold" approach responsibly, especially if other editors have questions over your ideas or revert your edit." Hell no, I'm not being terribly civil, my feet have just been stepped on. I'm going to bed. Please review my concerns on the Fairfield County talk page, my concerns in the edit summaries of my reverts at the Connecticut history article and consider it from my point of view, and if you do, I'll do the same thing for you. And if you want to see what an edit war (that may still not be over) REALLY looks like, take a look at the talk page (from top to bottom) and the history page of List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut. You might also review the many edits over the months of the Klan section and how I've had to defend it again and again and again and again. I really try hard to come to consensus. And I really fight when I think I'm being bullied. Your choice. Noroton 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same

We did get off on the wrong foot. Thanks for your note just now. You sent it just as I deleted the section from the Fairfield County article. I'll look at the Connecticut article as well and restore what you put there if it isn't there already. If I or someone else gets up a history article for the county, that's where it belongs. Thanks again. Noroton 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Josh_Wolf#Request_for_Comment:_Josh_Wolf_Profession_Viewpoints Josh Wolf RfC

Hi Cmprince, thanks for your comment on the RfC. I'm wondering if you can take another look at it because I'm trying to figure out if the court's viewpoint is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. All of us agree that we should describe him as a journalist. The issue is that since there is no licensing for Journalists in the United States, calling him a journalist is a point of view and since there are viewpoints that do not consider him a journalist, if those viewpoints are significant, they should be mentioned. I'm arguing that since Josh's notability is only asserted by the court case, this should be mentioned in the lead along with the mention that he and some organizations have called him a journalist. You are right to say that the court case was to decide if the shield law should be applied but in order to determine this, they had to figure out if Josh fit the sate of California's statutory definition of a journalist. They ruled that he did not and therefore the shield law could not be applied. I'm not trying to change your mind here, just asking you to comment on whether or not the court's viewpoint was significant enough to be mentioned in the lead since we all already agree that he should also be called a journalist. Thanks! -- Pdelongchamp 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little quick

I think 7 minutes is a little soon to judge whether or not an article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Am I going to have to expand this article right away? ...or do you think we can let it unfold. This theatre is significant because it is the first United Artists theatre built, and it is a landmark in the city of Chico today beacuse of the history of the diamond spire on top of it. Shall that sloppy last sentence suffice? Perhaps I could have some time to word smith and collect references? My goodness.

Gregbard 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on your talk page. Cmprince 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy portal review

Hi Cmprince. Knowing that you have an interest in an unconnected featured portal, I wondered if you might like to comment on the one I've been working on - energy portal - which is now under consideration for featured status. Compared to other candidates it has had relatively few people contributing to the debate, despite being up for discussion for 2 months. If you have time perhaps you would like to take a look? The candidate page can be found here. Gralo 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vick

I reverted your edits to the lead in the [[Michael Vick] article. We have been working hard collaboratively to keep this section in compliance with the guidelines of WP:Lead. However, I feel that your edits trimmed too much content and left the result out of balance. Please feel free to discuss on the article's Talk page. Maybe we can still trim without leaving out important stuff. Mark in Historic Triangle 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Deleting the People I research

You are really starting to get on my nerves. I am sorry you didn't learn manners at your Tier 4 college. User:WOverstreet —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Anastos

Thank you for being decisive. I saw the same plagiarism that you did but I really didn't know what to do with it. I thought about reverting but didn't want to go back too far. Perhaps I should've reworded some of the sentences but I left that for another day. --Roehl Sybing 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasing incident

That's fair, but it's worth pointing out that immediately after you removed that section, people started adding the information inappropriately to the main article (the lead, etc.). I think it's best for now to let the section grow as part of the U-Florida article and then move it somewhere else in the future if it's faded from relevance, so I've re-added it. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Park Music Festival

You may have missed the distinction between a free concert and a free series of over 30 concerts per year for over 70 years. We went through this nominating the article at T:TDYK--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

Problems with edits to Middletown, Connecticut

Hi there, I've been trying to add some information to the Middletown Connecticut article, good quality material, NPOV, solid references, etc. However, an individual with a state of Connecticut IP (Middletown IP?) keeps deleting the material. Tried to bring the user to the talk page, but very combative. Not sure how to proceed. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting the envelope . . .

Well, in this tragic year when the Writer's Strike is threatening to shut down so many awards shows, it's good to know that there are some awards that don't depend on unionized labor. Specifically, of course, I refer to the award for best edit summary for 2007. As a refresher, here was my nominated edit and summary.

So how did I do in the final standings? :-) Unschool (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Treatment

Thanks. I don't know how I missed the sentence in the immediately preceding paragraph. Time to get new contacts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hot8 logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hot8 logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Frederick Wellesley

Twinkle forgot to finish this AfD for you; I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sup Tink

I have increased the length of the article so it no longer needs to be deleted

==

Headline text

==

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings, I see you live in Norwalk! I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we (ahem, really just "I" right now) need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]