User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Grundle2600. 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

→

Columbine High School massacre

The edit summary you left here seems to indicate that you think they spent time in jail: "If they had still been in jail, they wouldn't have been able to do what they did." Outside of perhaps spending a few hours after having been arrested in 1998, they did not serve jail or prison time, the purpose of the diversion program was to put them on probation, have them attend classes, counselling or whatever was determined to be needed and eventually, the charges would have been expunged. Your change only adds a repeat of the prior sentence, which said although they remained on probation. Please don't attempt to synthesize something that didn't exist. I'm not sure at what point the term "parole officer" was added to the article, there was a lot of changing the last couple of weeks. They met with "diversion program officers", there were no parole officers involved. I'm still trying to find other confirmation that they were still on probation in April 1999. This bit of information comes from the hugely condensed article from USA Today and contradicts other sources which say they were released from diversion early. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. They were never in jail. But the source does say they were on probation at the time of the massacre. You say that other sources say otherwise, and that's an excellent point. If it really does turn out that they were on probation at the time of the massacre, the article should say so. I won't edit that part any more - I trust your judgement. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take out the phrase "although they remained on probation", but I did mark it as needing verification, so it wouldn't need to be returned - just better sourced. The USA Today article tried to summarize so many things in such a limited space that it couldn't possibly have covered every point. Almost everything I've found so far indicates that the diversion program (ie. probation) ended sometime between late January 1999 and early March 1999. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Baracking

This article will be deleted. But I thought you might find it interest/ amusing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2009 New York City airplane scare

I have nominated 2009 New York City airplane scare, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Drop Dead Fred

The recent edit you made to Drop Dead Fred has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought it was OK to quote someone if the quote was attributed. Perhaps I quoted too much. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, why not merge Drop Dead Fred (remake) to the main article until there is more information? Grsz¹¹ 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't want to contaminate the article on the original movie with the stuff about the remake. One sentence is enough. They are not the same movie. They are writing a new script for the remake. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

But there is so little available about the new one right now. Once their is more, once they start actually making it, it would be more appropriate split. Grsz¹¹ 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I made it a redirect for now. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Tramp Stamp Barbie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tramp Stamp Barbie.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a dumb bot! All of the info that you claim is not there, is there. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama

User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no personal attack on there. Everything is well sourced. Facts are facts, not personal attacks. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was highly biased though, pointing out all the negative things he has done. I almost thought it was a copy of a Conservapedia article for a second. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because the people control the Obama articles kept erasing it from those articles every time I put it in. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is "controlling" the Obama article. It sure is monitored by editors as other high profile articles are and yes, of course there is some bias involved as much as you have your own bias even when you think you're editing in a NPOV manner like "the other side" thinks so too. As some really nice admin tried to explain you at some point, leaving out accusations of bad faith by other editors in your (talk page and edit summary) comments could serve you well. Repeating and adapting other editors mistakes is what makes you end up in the same (or even worse) bucket.You don't want to be there and you don't have to. It is up to you to decide.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Still. I don't think that Obama's article is glowingly positive, and most of the "additions" seem trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Steven Chu

You can try to add this to an existing section but you should find some back-up for this single criticism to show notability.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The source contains a link to a video where you can here Chu's words for yourself. But I will look for an additional source as you suggest. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)

I have nominated The Truth (painting), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't contest this. At the time, it was planned that the painting would be displayed in public, but that plan has since been canceled. So you can delete the article immediately, without any argument from me. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have had reliable coverage in independent media. Why don't you think it's notable and worth including Grundle? It's not the Mona Lisa, but seems to meet the inclusion criteria and to be an interesting enough work of art. No? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It might be notable, but only slightly. I was really looking forward to the public reaction at the unveiling, and since it didn't happen, I don't mind if it gets deleted. But thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be a guideline...

...to look further into it especially this part. Hope you find it helpful.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW

Was this redirect you created meant as another joke from your side? If so, you're free to make jokes on talk pages as long as they don't violate WP:BLP (and are at least in whole intended to improve the article and not just forum soaping). But NOT in articles (including redirect pages) were such behavior can be easily interpreted as plain vandalism. Please restrain yourself to do so in the future.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Air Farce One appears to be a fairly widely used neologism on the internet if you enter it as a search term. So assuming good faith, I think an argument could be made for a redirect to a related article on the subject. I think it's a weak argument since I don't know of an appropriate target (of course I don't know where the redirect pointed), but I think that's the most obvious explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. In fact, it was the title of one of the articles that I cited. So out of curiosity, I did a google search, and it came up over 17,000 times. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search only results in 55 hits, mostly from blogs. This is a fairer representation of the facts, and a clear sign that the term is not widely used, or only used by partisans in a non-neutral way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Additions like this one are basically just wholesale quotes, and are not appropriate. That sort of thing is for Wikiquote. What we do at Wikipedia is summarize the views of a preponderance of reliable sources, and provide quotes only when absolutely needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly why you say that. I just didn't want to get accused of bias by summarizing it in my own words. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Penectomy

I removed your example from the article Penectomy. Check the definition of surgery if you are interested why. On a general note, I would appreciate if you would stop adding every bit of tabloid material that you can find to wikipedia. You know what I mean. And you have been around for long enough to know the rules... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was noteworthy, and I like to Wikipedia:Be bold. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)