Jump to content

User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Acne

I agree that "cracknee" and "necknee" were very silly, and added sometime after the initial entry about bacne. That term, though colloquial, is quite common and, if you type bacne in the search box, it will take you to the article on Acne vulgaris, unlike with its silly counterparts. As such, I think I'll re-add the part about bacne. -24.149.196.112 (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Powersurge

An article that you have been involved in editing, Powersurge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powersurge. Thank you. Weltanschaunng 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bay of Fundy

OK, I've spent a few minutes reviewing the articles, my knowledge of Polio, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness (a very poorly sourced article). There is no way that a fall into the Bay of Fundy led to polio, if that is in fact what the man had. Polio is a virus transmitted from person-to-person, not a fall into chilly water. The sources in the article do not indicate that fall was causal, because it couldn't be (unless the Bay is filled with polio virus, which is improbable). So, I stand by my reversion, and now will have to clean up the FDR article, which I guess is a good thing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Qais al-khonji

Hi Escape Orbit:

I saw your talk page note. Anyone that busy dating, marrying, advising the wealthy, and so on, is too busy and probably too exhausted to edit Wikipedia.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Musa Qala

It seems you were editing over the top of me whilst I was further reverting the anon users edit. Nearly gave me Palpitations when my save page did not work, I will adjust my edit and try again. :o) Richard Harvey (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisam

Were you montioring my user page for vandalism?  :-) I saw that someone posted the threat, but hadn't had time to look into it. Thanks for removing! Wallstreethotrod (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...

Are you sure that User talk:KesslerRonald is THE Ronald Kessler, and not just someone registered as such? I'd take it to UAA, but I figgered since you've edited his article several times, you might know...

(And for that matter, where's his freakin' {{wikipedian-bio}}?) Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

I removed the fact tags, because in the REFERENCES list is a source for all the statements!!!Reidlos (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited the sources like you wanted it, but the fact tags for the sentences about the top five position of I Know What You Want and the chart position for U Make Me Wanna are senseless, because in the reference list are thousand sites, where you can easily look them up.Reidlos (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Green Day Wikiproject

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Green Day and other related articles. Please consider joining the Green Day WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Green Day.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

LukeTheSpook (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Iain Lee

How can this page have been edited so much, yet not have a single cite?

Answer: Most of the edits are vandalism and reversion of vandalism. Such usually tends to preserve inferior versions of articles as everyone is in defence rather than development mode. Good work on the changes btw :) Orderinchaos 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another One Bites The Dust - Rocky 3

I googled this stuff and I came up with a couple possible verifications: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/united-artists/rocky-iii-790755.html?r=RSS - This one is from a newspaper & http://www.jimpeterik.com/btseot2006.htm - This one is from Jim Peterik's website (he is the songwriter of eye of the tiger) Here are the blurbs from each website respectively if you don't want to skim through all the articles. 

  1. Before settling on the film's signature song of "Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor, Sylvester Stallone wanted to use the already hit song "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen.#
  2. We were immediately knocked out by the power of the quick-cut visuals. We were also struck with how well the action worked with the temp music they had supplied - "Another One Bites The Dust" by Queen. I remember shaking my head and saying, "How are we ever going to beat that one?"#

If you think this is enough information please cite these as references and add them to the articles. Alas, I don't know how to cite facts myself. By the way, thanks for checking on this regularly. 78.69.235.75 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Jerry Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Another_One_Bites_the_Dust" Categories: Start-Class Queen articles | High-importance Queen articles | WikiProject Songs articles | Start-

I've already posted this on the Another One Bites the Dust Discussion page but you haven't checked it out. What do you think about this? This is from Jerry (I can't find those wavy things on this computer).

I THINK YOU'VE GENUINE PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.118.72 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on verifiable cites here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

sensored info on cassie (singer) disc page

WP:BLP

You asked for help on this. One of the first lines of WP:BLP states;

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.

Note the emphasis on any. I don't know the content of the removed material, but if it fails WP:BLP, it shouldn't be on a talk page the same as it shouldn't be on an article page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. The content doesnt fail. The contest was various things: [redacted] info on her risque oral sex inuendo music vid ( she did ). So why is sensoring this true info allowed? 70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea what that word even means. None of the redacted content was sourced. Find verifiable references from reliable sources and you can replace it, no problem. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


red hair

Thanks for your changes of the picture. Gerriet42 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

freckles in culture (short version)

Don't be so strict about finding references in that issue about freckles in culture. The attitude towards freckles really has changed in the last 30-40 years. (I would refer you to german music about freckles (sommersprossen) but I guess that wouldn't help. - I don't have any english examples for it, though.)

Why is it bad to refer to Luci Lu - I thought it was a nice example (not mine originally, though)Gerriet42 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's bad because it is uncited and your (or some-one's) personal opinion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kate Craig-Wood inclusion in list of transgendered

I had not finished submitting the detailed page, which is perhaps why you removed the entry.

It may seem a little arrogant to add oneself, but a quick google for "kate craig-wood" will show that I fit the criteria for a listing on that page. I am listed on Lynn Conway's TS successes page as well if that is any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khcw77 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

Hi, thanks for your interest in Celtic F.C., although we have our disagreements about the level of citations needed. While scanning the tags you added, I noticed that you added a fact tag to something that was a patent falsehood - a reference to Kilmarnock beating Celtic 6-0, which just did not happen, so that's at least one good thing that came out of your work!

However, I stand by my comment on your overzealousness regarding "POV" and citations. Re-reading WP:CITE and WP:When to cite:

"When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged",
When a source may not be needed
"Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."

- I would say that knowing when not to cite is as important as when to cite, otherwise we get into a rather silly situation where ever single statement has to be cited.

For example, although it is undoubtedly a "POV" that the rivalry between Celtic and Rangers is one of the fiercest in world football, this "POV" is unlikely ever to be challenged - and never has been until now. Do a simple Google and you'll find page after page about this rivalry - the article even linked to Major football rivalries where you can find out more. It's like someone asking for a fact tag for the POV that Pele was one of the best footballers in the world.

You don't appear to have made any attempt to do any verification of your own before adding the fact tags. I would suggest that if you find something that looks debateable, you first do a simple Google, and if you either find a citation which contradicts a statement, or on the other hand, find nothing to back the statement up, then make a remark on the talk page, then add a fact tag if the issue is not resolved.

Some of your other "fact" tags were really quite strange - for example, a fact tag on whether Celtic won every competition they entered in 1967 - this is extremely easy to verify by reading 1966-67 in Scottish football, and has never until now been challenged.

A fact tag on "Celtic has traditionally been linked with its founding roots which originate from the Irish immigrant community in Glasgow.". Like asking for a fact tag on "The earth is the third planet from the sun".

A fact tag on whether Celtic have their own channel, Channel67 - what is in contention here? Like asking for a citation that Celtic play in green and white hoops...

A fact tag on whether Martin O'Neill left Celtic to care for his wife who had cancer - I went ahead and found a BBC news citation for that, but when was it ever in question?

A fact tag that Celtic beat Rangers seven times in a row a couple of seasons ago - so easy to prove by reading the relevant seasons report, with links to BBC reports of the games in question, and never, until now, been at all questioned...

etc.

In summary, please add fact tags if, after some attempt at verification, there is any doubt, otherwise we get into the ridiculous situation where every statement, even when it's "Subject-specific common knowledge" is required to have a citation.

Camillus (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re. my page

Just a quick note to say thank you for tidying up my page and inserting the citations properly. I should have read the docs first... bit of a newbie. ;) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khcw77 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Lady Princess Duchess RE: Bangor Grammar School edits

Excuse me, I was not trying to be humourous. Part of the ideology of the 'Banter Bus' is that we operate it like a court, those titles are confirmed parts of the society. I dont mind if the James Edwards edit is taken out as it is actually fun, although factually true. However, the Banter Bus is factually correct, it was not intended to be a joke, those titles are part of the club so if you would kindly allow me to add that to the society section i would be very grateful.

It was just so outdated

It discussed My Life as it was occurring and itgnored its subsequent life this winter. Your changes are fine except that Ryan';s shows shold be in chrinocle order (just a thought). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FosseTheCat (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, Yes the Site Does Say the Obama Girl Was Attending A Party that Evening. Read It Better.

In fact, when she was telling the press that she was sick, she WAS AT THE PARTY. Don't be one-sided.Kevin j (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it is the facts. It was also reported on CNN that "while she was too sick to vote for Obama, she was well enough to attend a fundraiser party." If you are pro-Obama and want to hype the page like the Obama Girl made no mistakes, I suggest you give it up. Wikipedia is neutralKevin j (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on "good faith" and don't speculate about my motivation. Thanks. Your addition to the article clearly goes beyond the facts stated in the cite to draw your own conclusions. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your one sided opinions don't get to me in anyway. Like I said, WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL. It is alright to support Obama, but you cannot make it so the page leaves out any reliable controversy about the Obama Girl as well. She was active at the party, and that is an indicator that it is very unlikely she was sick. I suggest you also read the NPOV policy yourself.Kevin j (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is "reliable controversy" about Amber Lee Ettinger then cite it. So far the only controversy we have is your inference from a fairly innocuous blog column. If it is "unlikely she was sick" then produce a cite that says this. Your opinion/conclusions on the matter don't count. State the facts and let the reader decide themselves without your prompting. If you have a reputable source that says "she was not ill/did not look ill" then please cite it and we can move on. Otherwise what you're adding is an uncited and controversial accusation that will be removed per WP:BLP.
My opinion only goes as far as;

Yes, you're very questionable. Now you're trying to say it's a blog only. It was the New York Times for crying out loud. Only the paper's John McCain controversy was reported false in recent times. There is clear ground about you're political beliefs that YOU ARE BRINGING UP from you're messages. It's easy to estimate your bad faith opinions; Your opinion/conclusions on the matter don't count. I will continue to make sure it is written properly.Kevin j (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_user_is_violating_the_Good_Faith_Policy_and_blocking_My_Edits_on_the_Obama_Girl_Which_Are_Accurate about your edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Please do not remove the fan site from the Andy Murray wiki page without discussing it in the appropriate section first. As decided by the editors and admins in 2006, the inclusion and removal of any fan sites need to be approved prior to any action. The fan site you keep removing was approved by the editors and admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.127.149 (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep removing? I did it once. WP:FANSITE generally recommends that fan sites are not added and the External links section says nothing about any consensus on this website, only about adding new links. How do you expect editors to be aware of a decision in the archives of the talk page? You also need to take more care about calling edits vandalism and assume good faith. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Celtic FC

Hi - could you please revert the photobox I placed with the picture of the old firm clash or explain why it was labelled as vandalism? [1] It's a nice shot, it was wrongly labelled as vandalism and maybe you could reconsider?

Thanks, Excalibur (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person, it was you who reverted your own edits back to the version I last edited. I never touched it except to remove vandalism prior to your edits. See your edit here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - even after 900 odd edits I still find some of this console confusing! Sorry to bother you. Excalibur (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ты чё дурак совсем ?

3RR

Hello, Escape Orbit, you seem to be engaged in an edit war with Contact cascade on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds article. I would like to remind you, that the three-revert-rule prohibits reverting another user's edits on the same article more than 3 times. Doing so may result in your account being blocked. Thank you and have a nice day. AVandtalkcontribs 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I know what 3RR is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for the advice.

... I'll make an account. --90.205.32.244 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

crazefm

hi there.. i am editing the page for a few radios today one of them crazefm but it seems its being marked for deletion. so adding more info on it that i can find.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowark10 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Yah you are right let me edit it and by the way the link going to wakas mir is also showing that let me fix that i have some knowledge about on asian radio stations if u can remove the removal tags..

Gowark10 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw a flag on host-Wakas Mir am gonna add thing on him too from a few sources so if u can have a look at my edits on that.. Gowark10 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

My Lady Princess Duchess, The Banter Bus edits

I don't know how many times I have made this statement. The Banter Bus does exist the way I phrased is was agreed upon by the society by majority vote. I was not trying to be humourous. Part of the ideology of the 'Banter Bus' is that we operate it like a court, those titles are confirmed parts of the society. I dont mind if the James Edwards edit is taken out as it is actually fun, although factually true. However, the Banter Bus is factually correct, it was not intended to be a joke, those titles are part of the club so if you would kindly allow me to add that to the society section I would be very grateful. It is ridiculous that you have to remove the club because the style that its written in provokes laughter. Why should a school club that is obviously created by the students of the sixth form class not be written in the same tone that the club is presented? You people are over zealous. This is the fourth time its being put in, leave it alone it is not spam, it is factually acurate, it exists, it follows all the rules of wikipedia, it makes no sense for you to remove it. Also lets face it the only people likely to view the BGS wiki are likely to be student, parents and teachers in that school. They know that part of the ethos of the school is that it doesnt take itself remotely seriously. Respectfully leave the edit alone, you have no reason to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lady Princess Duchess (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ebay scammed

"Ebay is the worlds most scammed web page ever to be produced."

Actually, whoever posted that DOES have a point - though it would be hard to cite to your satifaction.

If you want to see some of it, let me know - I've been collecting PDF saves of some of the stuff going on there (The absolute WORST was the "stop4bargains" fraud - for 2 1/2 months the guy ripped off EVERYONE who won his auctions... and Ebay's reaction was to hide his feedback for him, make it harder for buyers to warn each others, and let him continue listing items and ripping people off :( )

75.7.240.28 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks, you told be that a muck was spelled wrong. Well thanks for telling me the correct spelling. I'm glad that I wrote that list. Well thanks again. I'm going to add you to my list of people who can be used if there is any help needed on my userpage.--Anfish (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Wead

Thank you for removing the unsupport slander on the Doug Wead page. Doug has been asking me to help remove that, or at least correct it for some time. --Aarondm (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Wead

I am having trouble keeping the language of this page NPOV. Can you help? I am rather new to Wikipedia, and Doug is a close family friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonpr3 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your right

I didn't consider that.. thanks!

Nonpr3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ken Chastain

Can you help me make this site better. I'm new and trying to learn how to do biographies and this is my first project. I appreciate what you have already done to make the site look better. Mechten (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

{{subst:Smile}} A smile for the vandalism you reverted on my talk page, thanks! --Cameron (T|C) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Smith (Cardiacs)

Thanks for reverting the POV-edits. That was actually the page state for over a month, i'd just finished a big cleanup of it. So thanks for clearing up after the bloke clearing up after me :). Ironholds 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Holden

Stop changing the Amanda Holden post - are you her publicist?Or just a busy body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.76 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try reading the article and your talk page before expecting others to reply to you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Celtic FC

You may not have realised but somebody(not me,I love Celtic FC) keeps vandalising Celtic FC page,a couple of days ago,somebody messed with the shirts colour and as I've been looking at the page I have seen a few errors,perhaps done by people,be careful of this person =90.212.131.45. YXN 宁雨翔 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

refrence

Can you help to create refrence on article Queen Da Boss? McJill (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance needed again with the Maria Sharapova article

Earlier this year, you helped with a problematic editor named Musiclover565 and Masha4ever and who used the anonymous IP account 92.3.230.33. This user appears to be back, using the anonymous IP account 92.3.138.123, and is being disruptive about deleting large portions of the article without attempting to obtain consensus. Please consider helping again! Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm glad you've moved on from claiming 92.3.138.123 is my sockpuppet, do you happen to have any evidence to support your theory that it is a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion on the Sharapova article between Tennis expert, Dudesleeper and myself serves as a sufficient demonstration of how silly Tennis experts random accusations of sockpuppetry are, so I wont bother commenting on them again. I am, however, going to take issue with your description of my edits as "disruptive" and as deleting "large" portions of text. All I have done is given the article a trim, deleting non-notable information (such as her entire run at the Tier II tournament in Amelia Island). I have very rarely put text of my own into the Career section, generally only when, because some nonnotable information has been removed, it doesnt make sense so I need to add something to link it up. My guess is I have removed less than 2% of the article. It is a completely bog-standard run-of-the-mill Wikipedia edit, and so I am puzzled as to why Tennis expert has so overreacted, and would also like to point out my attempts to open a discussion about the article with him have gone nowhere, with him either removing my comments from his talkpage without response, or otherwise, him responding with random smears or saying I needed consensus. And on that topic, I should again point out that Tennis expert is, thus far, the only person that has complained about his edits, and he is yet to give a proper criticsm of them, only that they delete information (which, as Wikipedia:Be bold shows, is permitted). 92.3.138.123 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Silly me for believing that the diffs were self-evident proof of your unconstructive edits. In any event, see this. Tennis expert (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Epic Edit

Sorry... I don't know how to make new articles... I can find some sources for that. Could so at least add a link to the wiktionary definition? Seriously, you haven't heard of Epic as internet slang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris7He (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

eBay

Thanks for cleaning up the Australian section. It was a huge POV nightmare and something I didn't have much time for to clean it up. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WLIIA?

Thanks. I'm glad it was met with a positive reaction, and not the anti-change attitude I was worried about. It would be ideal to move the performers list into a separate article - note that it can be done whether or not the list is currently complete, with an incomplete-list tag ({{Expand list}}); I simply don't have time to complete the list myself. I decided to clean this article up rather than do the move myself.

PS: Thanks for the typo fixes. That's tends to be my achilles heel with long edits.TheHYPO (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Naropa University

Dear Escape Orbit,

I must make it clear that the information currently on the Naropa page is INNACURATE which, in my opinion, is more egregious than any editorializing I slipped in when trying to fill out the page. Though there has been some discussion about "controversial content," I am primarily concerned with having a page that actually relates a lot of interesting information. I am relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's protocols or would have reported the misrepresentations of the current page earlier. If it makes any difference now, I can tell you that 1) Naropa does not REQUIRE students to engage in spiritual practice 2) it is not a Buddhist school and 3) and the degree offerings are incorrect. It is truly the former poster whom you should be after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mysmartclaims.com

You have put this up for deletion because it had not included its relevance yet. I am still editing the page so may iI please ask for your patience —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellaNorCal1981 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment

I have taken on your advice and have outlined my case for a B rating on the Sharapova discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: James Barrier

User talk:SteveMiller4LV|talk]] apparently is not reading his talk page and not realizing he is getting messages. He has reposted the same paragraph since you explained what he needs to do. Also, he deleted (I assume accidentally, since he doesn't appear to know how to post) categories, external links and references. I undid that as well. He also reposted several times under User talk:70.173.161.234 (same paragraph as posted by user SteveMiller4LV), and I left messages for him there as well. What is the next step? AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. From everything I can gather, one TV station did look into the claims by the family that the GHB in Barrier's system contributed to his death. Police and the coroner, however, have continued to say that GHB did not contribute to Barrier's death. No outside expert has come forward to say that GHB may have been a contributing factor in Barrier's death. The only people who have said it appear to be Barrier's daughters and friends. If you do request a block for SteveMiller4LV, will you also be requesting a block for the IP address he's been using (someone posted exactly the same thing; and I sent messages to that IP address as well as SteveMiller4LV's talk page; both were ignored so it looks like it's the same person). Thank you! AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Escape Orbit: Just undid another edit by user SteveMiller4LV. He once again deleted the categories and references, so I undid that blunder as well. He doesn't appear to know his way around Wikipedia. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have warned SteveMiller4LV in no uncertain terms that he is to discuss his changes on the article’s talk page or I will block him and have watchlisted the article. —Travistalk 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Regards your comment on my talk page: We all learn better ways from other editors (thank you), but there was a subtext to my argument with the other editor, which was that he came in and deleted several of my constructive edits (which added new information), rather than editing them. There are unfortunately a number of lazy editors who just delete what they don't like stylistically, rather than making it conform to their view of good Wiki style. I try to be constuctive in my edits and add to the content. I consider this unconstructive editing to be rather churlish. Rather than spending time making such deletions, there are so may articles that could use more information. --Zeamays (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Muscular dystrophy

Hello! If you want to include Stephen Hawking as an example of patient of Muscular dystrophy, do so at the right place in the article, say a section of "Famous people with muscular dystrophy", not at the top of the article. Also, use a reliable source to cite that he suffers from the disease, even if that might be very well known. If in doubt, contact me on my talk page.


Extremely, extremely sorry. That message was meant for the new user "muscular dystrophy". Am new at using Huggle. Hopw you'll understand and excuse me. Regards. 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) —KetanPanchaltaLK 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edit Summaries

Alright, will do and sorry for any inconvieniences. Chipthief00 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable vs. Tremendeous

Hello EO,

Please do not take this too much to the heart, and forgive if it sounds too sarcastic. I apreciate the input, one thing though, if you can, since you are in Britain (im now in assignment in South East Asia), do me a favour, go to the range pick up a .700 Nitro Express and shoot it once. Then, perhaps from the hospital, e-mail an essay on differences between "notable" and "tremendeous", and tell me if its still a personal POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonisRugitur (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your heads up on my first attempted article regarding its notability. I knew of the requirements, but was curious about where the lines were exactly. Your help is appreciated. Ffenliv (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty funny. 68.46.238.32 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Independence

Your edits to the Scottish Independence are welcomed, but the manner in which you are doing them is extremely disruptive. Please stop automatically reverting other's edits and discuss the changes before reverting. Edit wars are unproductive, and while you have currently avoided breaching the 3 reverts rule, you should keep in mind that edit warring can still get you blocked. Please use the talk pages. Thank you. Jw2034 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Now you are being silly.. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

perhaps instead of revert, revert, revert you should contribute constructively and reply on the talk page yourselfJw2034 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a break, gather your thoughts, and take it to the talk page. Perhaps you might seen then that I am not the one you are edit warring with. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One answer to your comments in my page: Wikipedia:Be bold

I will not discuss the liberal use of reverts with a user who has continually obstructed any contribution to the article or attempts on the talk page to reach consensus (which has now been done without yourself) and who's comments have bordered on a personal attack. Next time, contribute positively like User:Jmorrison230582. It is clear technical aspects on parliamentary supremacy and referenda, the Calman commision and National Conversation and unilateral independence do need to be there and were correct - rather than reverting, perhaps it would've been better to help find citations...Jw2034 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should continue this discussion tomorrow, once you have calmed down. I did not "obstruct" anything. I merely asked that you follow policy and cite what you were adding. I didn't even remove most of what you were adding, I tagged things as needing cites, something you immediately reverted, despite the fact that they were undeniably uncited. The rest of what I removed I explained as being POV and OR, things you did not attempt to defend or change before reverting. It is that which I reverted and explained for you on the talk page. At no time did I say that the issue did not belong on the page. As for "consensus being reached"; I'm not seeing much consensus; I see two editors who have reverted each other 6 times in the last hour. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova - notable matches

Hi. As you are a regular editor at Maria Sharapova, your opinion as to whether you believe the "Notable matches" section is necessary to the article would be appreciated. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Musiclover565 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Budgerigar

Uh, check the history; you've got the wrong guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarbier (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

fine then.

Wikipedia policy? It's common sense. No-one else deleted it until I did something. ???--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Florida Keys SPAM Removal

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm not completely familiar with the "rules"... but I am familiar with Crane Point Hammock in Marathon, FL. It is owned and operated by the non-profit, "Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust". It is a nature preserve, Florida Keys natural history museum, is home to a wild bird rehabilitation center and is one of the few cultural centers in Marathon. Must the external link be deleted? I admit the homepage appears a wee bit commercial... but read here:

http://www.cranepoint.net/about.html.

Thanks for the consideration on the matter... as a newbie, I'll respect and support your response!

Direnzoa (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick Clegg

You could say the same about the Luntz focus group - that is non event in its self as Clegg was not even involved in that. The 30 shag's interview on your views would not be there either! Would you edit out the Neil Kinnock falling in the sea or William Hague and the baseball cap moment?

John Redwood made a similar mistake in the 1990's with the miming - it is what happens to politicians and gives the reader information about why the public percieve them in a certain way for good or ill. I think you must be an LD who is very thin skinned on this issue. Clegg will not have a Wiki entry at all the way you suggest it is edited.

To be honest I think you vandalise the work by removing it, the other party leaders have similar sections in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aifjfox (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Don't delete sourced content and call it uncited and incorrect. Neutrality22 (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is incorrect and most of it is uncited.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Alleichem

An RfC has been started for User:Alleichem. Since you have been a party to disputes with this user, it would be helpful if you could post your opinion there. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Re: Mariah Carey

I do have a source on her soprano voice range: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:vSZ-Cbu9fEMJ:www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp%3Fppn%3DMN0054121+Mariah+Carey+full+soprano&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thank you and have a nice day. Tribal44 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

And your source lists Alto as the first voice type. So you've shown nothing except either can sing "All I Want For Christmas". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Escape_Orbit/Archive_2&oldid=1190123945"