User talk:Headphonos

Welcome!

Hello Headphonos! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Nina Odell 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Regarding your edit to Bear-baiting:

Your recent edit to Bear-baiting (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School massacres

I see them in the Category:School massacres only once - some people don't want to click through 10 links to see a whole 30 items that are in the subcategories. Fresheneesz 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload first

This add edit to Saddam Hussein was apparently premature edit summation (since it's not yet deleted!). You can add an image from the article, while in preview, backup to then save. Thanks, t'will avoid such confusion and time waste. // FrankB 16:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious... now it IS gone. I saw it's grainy nature for a moment! Think I better avoid this page--too active! Cheers // FrankB 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Category:Canadian dogs

Although the Category:American dogs page did not have a summary, I added on to both. The reason that the Labrador retriever is listed as Canadian is because that, like its name, it originated in the Labradorean towns in which it was used as a traditional hunter retrieving dog. Technically this dog could be seen as simply one from Newfoundland but since the country became a province 50 years ago, it seems pointless to create a separate category. (Even if one was to do so, there would be only the Labrador retriever and Newfoundland (dog) Hopefully this clears things up. Simtropolitan 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old English Bulldog

Please address my question; stating "The breed is extinct." is not a sufficient answer. The word "extinction" in the scientific sense, which is how the word is treated in the extinction article this page links to, refers to a species. Dog breeds are not species, so it follows that the "old english bulldog" breed could not be extinct.

Furthermore, where is the harm in stating that the factual accuracy is disputed (which is the only change to the article -- I did not remove the "extinction" references)? The factual accuracy is disputed. Please remove the tag only after the dispute is resolved.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the factual accuracy tag; I really don't want to engage in a revert war, especially over a topic this frivolous. Yes, there are references at the bottom of the page, but there are no markers within the page to identify the source of any specific piece of information, much less citations for the information regarding the breed's "extinction". I listed my citations within the talk page (Dog breed & Extinction) and my rationale for the accuracy dispute, it is only fair that you should do the same by addressing the question posed: how can a dog breed be extinct when the term extinction refers to a species and a dog breed is not a species but rather "a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans". [1] The discussion on the talk page does not apply to this dispute as I'm not arguing against the claim that the breed no longer exists but instead that the use of the term "extinction" is misused.

I don't think that my request is an unreasonable one and I have and will continue to be civil in this dispute. I only request that you remain civil as well and show me the same amount of respect that I have you by not dismissing this dispute without adequately addressing my questions on the talk page. I will gladly drop the issue once you or someone else does.

I'll give you some time to respond to my argument. If you do not respond within a reasonable amount of time I think it is only fair that the dispute tag be restored. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rat-baiting4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rat-baiting4.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake on my part - the appropriate +tag has been added. Headphonos 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rat categories

i'm right in the middle of fixing the screwed up cats for rats. For example, the gambian pouched rat is a type of species, not a breed. take a look at my contributions to see what i'm doing. the cats were all screwed up, with animals kept as pets including the entire Rat category (dosn't make sense, since many species of rats aren't kept, and articles like myomancy don't belong under that either, i've created a Pet rat category and subbed in under both Rats and Animals kept as pets. However, many articles written under the Rat breeds category are NOT breeds. Dumbo, Rex, and Hairless would be breeds, not the Pouched rat or swamp rat. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, i removed Fancy rat from rat breeds because it is not really a breed itself, but the group to which all breeds would belong (Neither Dog nor Wolf belong to the Dog breed category). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok.... i didn't see the process outlined anywhere, not familiar with CFD :) thank you. Is there a way to have the bot just move them without going through a process? This doesn't appear to be a controversial change (unless you disagree. Perhaps you can give me it's username? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you would be against me using {{Category redirect}} to force a soft redirect from the bots? this would clear out the page without deleting it and then we can see what's left to keep in a rat breeds category. I also proposed a solution at your CFD -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you had read the articles you would have seen that they were fictional pet rats. However, since the category does not specificlly label them as such I'll wait until I can find a few more articles to place in a Category:Fictional pet rats would that meet your approval? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because the NWRAM and OWRAM categories are not really affected by these changes, there is no reason to wait. Incidentally, as the nominator of those caegories, did you have a response to my solution? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new world rat and mice and OWRAM

i have left a solution at the discussion page but no one has provided any feedback and i fear that is why the discussion was not closed today, could you please respond so that it could be closed? I will also be contacting jc37 and headphonos, thanx! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

This is for reporting obvious vandalism, not for complaining about imaginary administrative abuse. Thanks. yandman 10:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This is why the article was deleted. yandman 10:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. If you like cats too, there's a Wikiproject for that as well...Nina Odell 13:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old English Terrrier :: All you have done is plagiarize text lifted, whole cloth, from Rawdon Briggs Lee "Modern Dogs" written in the 1890s -- a book I am prety sure you have not read as it very clearly states the the dog breed existed for less than 30 years, had already gone extinct, and was cobbled up by a cross with a white foxing terriers and a lap dog (an Italian Whippet). Instead of engaging in a revert war, however, I am going to post my original text under the title it originally was under -- and under the name the dog is known as -- the "English White Terrier." I will also add a link to this plagiarized breed description which is given entirely without context and adds, in my estimation, exactly zero to an understanding of the world of dogs in general or terriers in particular. -PBurns3711

The book is no longer copyright protected and is published on the Internet Book and it is included in the reference section of the article. The information you have added has nothing to do with the Old English Terrier. Headphonos 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs

Thanks for contacting me. Now that the article you mentioned to me has been deleted, what, if anything would you like me to do? Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a 3rd party resource on the breed that is not a mirror of Wikipedia in some way and that is not a marketing site for the Winston Olde English Bulldogge. So, an article in a dog journal that distributes paid subscriptions, a breed standard from a national or international dog club, a scholarly article describing the breed's extinction or development, something like that. Keesiewonder 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no clue if this is what you're looking for or not: [[2]].Nina Odell 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nina! That's not the kind of thing I'm looking for, however. caninecoalition.com for the page you provided looks like a mirror site to WP. If you compare the content at [[3]] to Old English Bulldog, you'll see what I mean. Keesiewonder 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable third-party sources. The best way to have an article on this topic on Wikipedia is to cite such sources in the article. See Wikipedia:Notability for more information. (Note: Wikipedia: Requests for investigation is for vandalism. This is not vandalism, and calling it such is an assumption of bad faith.) —Centrx→talk • 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, vote canvassing is not allowed. Do not do it again. —Centrx→talk • 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether you are an anonymous user or not. Advertising an AFD or DRV to a selected users to vote a certain way is not allowed. See specifically Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:Spam#Votestacking. —Centrx→talk • 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not remove the {{afdanons}} notice. This is the standard, appropriate notice for this situation. —Centrx→talk • 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Addhoc 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headphonos

I wonder if you could ask to have the policy on dog breeds relaxed a bit for an extinct breed. As you said, there are a couple of books that reference this. One thing you might want to do is check out Wikibooks and see if there are any freely licensed texts that cite this dog. Another option might be to see if anyone else at Wikiproject Dog Breeds has read the books in question. Or, perhaps, just letting it go for now.

On a related note, my non-profit doesn't have an article about it on Wikipedia yet, nor does the parent organization. I'm simply biding my time, keeping it in mind, and waiting for it's notability. One of the reasons for restrictions on articles is having the number articles we can keep stable and prevent vandalism of down to a manageable number. Please don't be discouraged, there are plenty of things to do here. The project is very, very, big. Nina Odell 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we require is the Dog Wikiproject people to collaborate on a Wikipedia policy as to what constitutes a dog breed worthy of an article at Wikipedia. Some of the editors that state "Delete" site that no major kennel recognizes the breed. To an editor who is not knowledgeable about dog breeds, that might seem like a legitimate approach; however, the majors only recognize a couple of hundred dog breeds. If we follow this policy 1800 dog breed articles at Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Do you understand the dilemma now ? Headphonos 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a list of the 1800 dog breed articles at Wikipedia that (would) need deletion? Also, please be careful of the distinction between, say, a major kennel and a major, international, dog breed standards organization such as the FCI. Keesiewonder 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! How do you spell 'Beat one's head against wall?' I don't know if you've been following my posts on all things bulldog, but, these exchanges are evidence that, perhaps we have better things to do with our time! (Want to co-author a book on bulldogs? I don't even like bulldogs, but, that is not what this is about!) Ugh! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is why can't rare breeds belong to Wikipedia, they exist. There are many at wikipedia and they will lose a vote based on what I am seeing here now ie: Wilkinson Bulldog. Wikipedia is morphing into something called Wikiality Headphonos 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given an answer for this already -- essentially, let's do one thing at a time. There are deletion reviews and AfDs in process. Once those processes are over for the articles you care about, we can move on to the next piece. Please answer my direct questions, work with the the users on the dog projects, etc. and things may work out much better than you're thinking. I am trying to work with you, correspond with you, help the AfDs and deletion reviews based on my own independent research, and ... I'm not getting much feedback from you other than Wikiality, etc. If you have not already, please skim my talk page. Maybe some of the questions I'm waiting for answers on are there and you just haven't seen them. Please also read my input at the various AfDs and the deletion review. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not belong to the Wiki dog project, I am only interested in certain breeds, not the 2000+ dog related articles Category:Dogs. As wikipedia devolves into Wikiality, editors are becoming fed up and leave. A few start new Wiki projects specific there wants ie: Wookiepedia eventually, there will be wiki's for "Dogpedia" & "Catpedia" etc. allowing editors who know what they are writing and voting about to compile accurate and correct information, that will be reviewed by editors with knowledge. ie: the opposite of Wikiality. There is not much more I can add about the various bulldog articles being voted on, I have contributed as much as I can. I have books and the best Internet websites bookmarked on the dog breeds I am interested in, I know the truth, other less informed and gullible editors can vote any way they want, Wikiality has it's own momentum, it can't be stopped. Good luck to you and perhaps we will communicate more at some time in the future. Thank you Headphonos 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim for Old English Terrier:

Can you please give a citation for your claim that the "Old English Terrier: is the same as the breed known to dog historians as "The English White Terrier"? Please make them contemporaries of the early breed formations (1860-1930) or experts in working terriers today (an by working terriers, I do not mean fighting dogs but true hunting dogs that go to ground). I will give you a list of a few in the former catagorey (Rawdon Lee Briggs, Vero Shaw, Leighton), and a few in the latter catagorey (Brian Plummer, Jo-Anne Frier Mura). Since all you have done so far is plagiarize a book you have clearly not read, I am wondering if you have a source for what you assert? I do. On another note, your said wikibooks has something mentioning the "Old English Terrier". I went there, and it does not. The link you have to the text you plagiarized (without attribution) from Rawdon Briggs is from a "spam" cite that is selling a dog training book and has a "bot" that rips and steals text from others no matter where it comes from. This is how you "research"? - PBurns

Please dampen your +cat links

Your talk page is showing up here Category:Dog lists Headphonos 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody posted a message that included the category. It's fixed now. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-existent sources for Headphonos' "Old English Terrier" Claims

Headphonos was asked to come up with a source for his assertion that the "Old English Terrier" is the same as the English white terrier. He was asked to cite any source from 1860-1920 when the English White terrier was actually extent, or any source from more modern working terrier literature (i.e. those who hunt their terriers), but not the bulldog literature which is notoriously wrong and full of pretenders. I noted three sources for my claim from the first group (Rawdon Lee, Vero Shaw and Leighton), and two from the latter (Brian Plummer and Joanne Fier-Murza). Here are the citations offered by Headphonos, which are being deleted as they do not support his claim and are laughable as "research":

1. Concise Britannica Encyclopedia This article actually refernces the English White Terrier or White English Terrier, proving the opposite of what Headphonos asserts.

2. Depaco This is a bull dog breeders cite of no authority, written in colloquial style and it too says the dog was "probably the White English Terrier, Black and Tan - or/and - the Fox Terrier". In short, it says the opposite of what Headphonos asserts.

3. Old English TerrierThis is a link to a spambot encyclopedia that, like an earlier citation to another spambot web site Headphonos cited, was created purely to sell the ad space around it. The dog shown in the pcture here is a brown and white AKC fox terrier, and it not a "old english terrier" (whatever that is) or an English White terrier (see breed description from Rawdon Lee).

Bottom line: There is no source for Headphonos' claim that the "Old English Terrier" was ever a breed and that it is the same as the English White Terrier. As previously noted, there was briefly something called the "Old English Broken-haired Terrier," but it was a plain-old black and tan fell terrier (a dog that still exists today and which is not white). This dog that was later improved to become the welsh terrier and is commonly known in the cynology literature as a "Black and Tan terier". -- PBurns3711

Hi Headphonos

.

Isn't she pretty? Hope you're doing well:).Nina Odell 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Headphonos 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ooops

Thanks for moving material I placed on Donpelon's empty user page to his/her empty talk page. I sometimes get these mixed up when they're both empty. Thanks for the fix!

I have a concern, though. I'm sure you can help me. Please assure me that Headphonos and Donpelon are not the same user with two different user names. Thanks!

Keesiewonder 10:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ... there is also a user with the user name User:Don Pelon, active in the Olde English Bulldogge article. Please explain if you have any info. Keesiewonder 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a hike ! Headphonos 14:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Evans

Sean Evans is notable enough, Everyone else in the youth team is and so should he. JFBurton 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, re-created articles that have been previously AfD-ed can be speedily deleted. Simply just tag the article with {{deleteagain}}. Happy editing! :) - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trophy hunting

As nominator, could you please go to the AfD and put the reason for nominating this article for deletion right under the "header" (right below </includeonly>(View log)). Sometimes parts of AfD's get lost in the 3 step process, and it appears that the "reason" didn't make it to the final page. Thanks... SkierRMH 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species of Wolf

There's no need for this. Category:Wolves was sufficient, and your naming convention is not how other species categories are named. I've nominated the category for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Species_of_Wolf. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a civil tone. This is not about winning or losing, it is about creating a worthwhile encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear hunting

I'm a bit confused about your AfD. Do you want the article deleted or moved? If you want it moved then go ahead and move it, there is no need to go through an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should look at Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves. In this case I felt that the move was covered by "Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves" based on your observation that the main article is Polar Bear. If on the other hand I get complaints about it then I would consider moving it back. However, people will not go to an AfD to discuss the move. If you see articles that you think should be moved then you could either go to Wikipedia:Requested moves or even better you could not it on the articles talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go away ! Headphonos 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominator article

Just want to drop you a note and thank you for the work you've done on the Dominator article, and to let you know that I've renamed it to Aeronautics Dominator, to conform it with the standard naming scheme for aircraft, which is <<manufacturer>><<name>>. Thanks! Akradecki 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes with that. I've been working on the UAV project for quite some time now, trying to being organization to a very disorganized subject. In doing so, we are trying to conform all of the names to the standard Wikipedia guidelines, which you can find here. Notice we don't have "Mustan Figher" or "B-52 Bomber". The standard for aircraft when there is no model number is what I stated above. It doesn't take a vote to conform an article to an established Wikipedia guideline. But if you really insist on a vote, I'd be happy to bring it to the Project, and let them overwhelmingly say the same thing. Akradecki 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UAV page rename

You are incorrect, it is not a formal name, and should not be capitalized. And, you didn't go get a vote! Akradecki 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow procedure. If you have an issue with the name of the article, take it up at WP:Air. You are the one not conforming to established standards here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School massacres

Hi there. You recently reverted my edit that was an attempt to unify the multiple subcategories in the category, and allow people to see all the school massacre articles in one list, rather than having to click through ten different subcategories. I admit the list is old (no easy way to update it), but was wondering why you labelled it as nonsense? Carcharoth 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Dominator UAV

I have looked at this move. The editors involved with this move are very activley involved with WP:AIRCRAFT, the project who handles naming convetions of aircraft related articles. It appears that they name they have moved it to is inaccordance with the naming conventions set out int he project. Edit warring over this could possible result in a temporary block. I personally see no problem with the rename and having the originial name redirect to the new name. If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talkpage, I agree with your position on discussing the change of name, all what you call the "mob" are simple relaying the concensus that has been agreed in the past. There is nothing stopping you making suggestions or starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). You may also like to read Wikipedia:Civility. MilborneOne 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming that another editor moved your article without consensus or opinion. This is in fact false, because naming of articles is not often discussed at the article level, especially where a common naming convention is required for standardisation. A consensus has already been reached regarding proper naming conventions and your article was moved to the new name per the previous consensus. Arguing the point on the articles talk page is the improper place to do so, and it should be a discussion, not a vote. Your article has been brought up at the wiki project aircraft talk page. This project is formed by a group of editors interested in aviation (you are welcome to join the project and get involved with discussions on the talk page). As stated above, you are also welcome to post your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) regarding the current naming convention (should you find it flawed). For more information on aircraft related articles and the ideal layout per this project, feel free to read up on wikiproject aircrafts page content guidelines. I hope this helps clear things up. If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know on my User talk page! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

If tou consider your disruptive behavior, you will be temporarily blocked for disruption. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Unmanned aerial vehicle

I have added a section (with that same name) to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). You may wish to comment. Chris the speller 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain

Please refrain from threatening other editors with "getting there account blocked" If there is a dispute, please feel free to resolve it through civil discourse. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am remaining neutral. I read your comment on his user page which is fairly uncivil. I have not said anybody is wrong and I am currently perusing your contribs and trying to find conflicting edits between you and Akradecki. I have found one, and I agree that the maintenace issues have not been resolved. This is not me being unneutral, it is me reading the articles and agreeing with another editors maintenace tags. If you have any diffs that show where he is stalking you, please feel free to show them to me and I will review them. I assure you I am totally neutral to this topic, but please do not be offended if I do not agree with you. Hope this helps! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff I have contributed this article, do you see your buddies edits anywhere in the article history? That is called stalking bye ! Headphonos 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALKING states,

" The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. "

I have perused the contributions and the majority of articles you have edited, Akradecki has no involvement in and has stayed out of. I read the dif provided above and agree that the issues added on the talk page have not been resolved. IF AKradecki was wiki-stalking you, there would be much more of a connection between your contributions (which I fail to find). One article that you both have edited or gotten involved in is hardly enough. (I very regularly get involved in articles I have not written if I feel there are problems with this article. I may find them on other users pages or by cliking random article. This by no means constituets wiki stalking). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I respect your opinion of my behavior, I however am going to have to ask that you remain civil in this process and refrain from calling peoples opinion, "B.S." I have a strange feeling that anybody disagrees with your views will fall under the category of "biased" and will fall in your disgrace. If there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know. I will refrain from using your talk page unless I find you violating wikipedia policies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More B.S. ! Headphonos 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+tags

Do you have a list of reputable websites that I can refer to? I tried to look carefully at each website before I decided upon it, and most were either breeders websites, one single club website which did not link to others or websites where you can write your own information (much like this one). Ensyc 11:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be construed as vandalism ...

Hi Headphonos. Please be careful about removing tags placed by other users in articles. The following is from Wikipedia-Types of Vandalism

Improper use of dispute tags: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

I am aware of your removing these kinds of tags in the recent past, such as at the Old English Bulldog article. The {{Disputed}} and {{tooshort}} tags currently remain in this article, but I am aware of other articles undergoing the same kind of tag battle right now. Please work with other editors who are interested in the same articles as you on the article's talk page to resolve the issue of reliable resources. If reliable resources do not exist, then someone will very likely recommend the article for an AfD.

Thanks for your consideration. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Please be careful when blindly reverting articles. Your recent reversion of Bully Kutta. listed here, you removed a references section as well as re-instated several links that may be spam. In the future, when you revert, please do not blindly revert the article because you may disagree with an edit, however carefully analyze the diff and determine exactly what parts of the changes you have issue with. Removing the references section again may lead other to believe that there are no valid 3rd party sources and the article may be proposed for deletion via AFD. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rodent species categories

i suspect that the person you're goning to want to go yell at is User:Aranae. This user has a more experienced outlook on the rodent family and was the person, i beleive, who orginally set the categories up that you decided to change without any scientific reasoning. IMO, on wikipedia, something works until someone comes along and doesn't thinkit does, then the answer is to try and find a compromise. Your "Breeds of X" categories were something that could just not be tolerated, however i understood where you were going with this and tried to find some common ground. However, Aranae pointed out that by classfying species as mouse or rat we were misleading readers and miseducating them (several species have common names of both "mouse" and "rat", and many times the species aren't very closely related to other "rats" or "mice" at all). I thought that by including a disclaimer within the "Species of X" categories we could reach a compromise, however Arane (I suspect) relisted them all at CFD and i intentionally stayed out of it, to let other wikipedians voice their thoughts... apparently Aranae's way of doing things won out. I'd like to remind you that while you didn't flat out accuse me of deleting them, the fact that you just left a note on my talk page, without doing any investigative work yourself, could lead me to become a bit defensive, and i suggest that you assume good faith in the future or you risk offending people. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok... this is exactly the kind of thing that i was cautioning against. It would easily qualify as a personal attack and is severely frowned upon. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you about making such personal attacks against other wikipedians. These actions are uncivil and disruptive to wikipedia. I am warnings you again. If you continue to exhbit such disruptive behavior, you will more than likley be temporarily blocked. Please think about what you say before saying it! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the categories you set up were simply categories that other editors could not use. No one knows what you mean by the terms "rat" and "mouse" and how to categorize a given taxa as one or the other. Waiting for Headphonos to come along and make a subjective call wasn't going to cut it. The categorization scheme you applied was not verifiable (i.e. no legitimate sources would apply this) and you removed articles from a category scheme which is verifiable (see any citation on the Muroidea page) to apply your arbitrary one. Until this matter was fixed, we were misleading our readers.UtherSRG, a more experienced editor in the relevant wikiprojects, WP:TOL and WP:MAM, removed the categories with my encouragement and assistance. --Aranae 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your last warning for disruptive, uncivil behavior. Most recently, this comment you posted on my talk page. You have a history with many valuable contributions, unfortunatly, you have also recently had a history with being uncivil and disruptive as well as making personal attacks. I really have no desire to block you for these offensive but should you continue such beahvior, you will be temporarily blocked for these actions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

I have warned you many times about your uncivil and disruptive behavior. You retaliated to these warnings in an uncivil manner. Therefore I have temporarily blocked you for a period of 5 minutes for this behavior. If you have any quesitons regarding this, please let me know. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales, you will be blocked for disruption. Comments like this [4] are unacceptable. --EngineerScotty 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that vein kindly cease spreading falsities regarding the photos of User:Sj. (→Netscott) 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rollbacked your edit as I am not interested in speaking to you and you are unwelcomed on my talk page. As well, I filed an incidents report as to what I consider perpetual misconduct on your part (Link). El_C 11:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for a period of 24 hours at present for your personal attacks and there is also discussion concerning your behaviour at WP:ANI - allegations of pedophilia can often result in the user alleging such being blocked or banned for a very lengthy period indeed, however an apology following the expiry of your block to all of those who you have attacked would go some way, I'm sure, in preventing a further escalation in this issue. -- Nick ^t 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked II

I've changed the 24-hour block into a week, following Nick's suggestion at WP:ANI.[5] Please don't insult people when you return, or I will support a one-month block next time. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

Thank very much for the barnstar! It is very nice to have some appreciation. Sorry for being late in replying; I have very busy for the last couple of months, and have not have much time for Wikipedia. Thank again very for the barnstar! :)--A.S. Brown 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Quaker Alley

Quaker Alley, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Quaker Alley satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaker Alley and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Quaker Alley during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pet amphibians

Category:Pet amphibians has been nominated for merging; you are invited to participate in the discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pet spiders

Category:Pet spiders has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to participate in the discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dominator UAV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dominator UAV.jpg. 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 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings destroyed during World War II in the United Kingdom

See my proposal to rename Category:Buildings destroyed during World War II in the United Kingdom to Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom destroyed during World War II Hugo999 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gull Terr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gull Terr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gull Terr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TKK ^{bark !} 22:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Insect fighting has been nominated for merging

Category:Insect fighting has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]