User talk:Tad Lincoln/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tad Lincoln. 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 |
Welcome
|
Caylee Anthony
What does being or not being a current event have to do with anything? Where is the discussion regarding removing large parts of the article? Tvoz/talk 05:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with it being edited, but wholesale removal without discussion or explanation is not the way to do that. I see that you didn't do the initial removal, but I think the thing to do is go back to what we had and edit it - not go along with some anon's unexplained slashing. I was starting to do that- to go through subsequent edits and incorporate those that made sense, but I'm not going to bother if it's just going to be ignored. Not being a current event is irrelevant. WHy would you leave in minor details like the date her parents went on Larry King, but remove the entire description of why the case received such widespread attention? Tvoz/talk 05:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- No need to apologize - I had to look a bit to see what happened there too. Tvoz/talk 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
←Hi Tad - I left a warning on the other editor's talk about 3RR - but you should cool it too. Have to try to engage the editor in discussion about why he thinks his edit is valid, and where is his sourcing. If he continues to put his edit in, let other editors come in and revert it if they agree with you, so it's not all you (let me know if he does it again in case I miss it) - right now to an outside eye it looks like you both are edit warring. He's been warned - if he persists, he'll get a block to reinforce the point. But you don't want to get blocked too, so don't be a one-man band on this. Frankly I have no idea what difference it makes if it says it was 15 or it was 20 houses away - what do the preponderance of sources say? Tvoz/talk 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- But - I just saw his Nancy Grace transcript, and see that it's not a good source as it contradicts itself. I left a note on his page to that effect. Tvoz/talk 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it doesn't matter if it's 15 or 20 - what is notable is that it is a short walk from the home. I think I've heard 15 more than anything else, and one source said a quarter of a mile (but people may not easily grasp how far that is). In any case, going on Google Earth is totally original research and not acceptable. You didn't do anything that wrong, as you were trying to keep unsourced and unexplained questionable material out of the article, but in general it's usually best to try to get others involved - as you did. It's ok, at least as far as I can see - let's see what happens now. So far he hasn't come back. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Handling vandals
Hi, I saw your comment on Talk:Chicago (and I saw 12.12.40.18's vandalism of the page you were referring to). IP addresses can be blocked just like signed-in users, however there are some limitations to this. Most importantly, there's usually no way to be certain that the person editing from that IP address now is the same one who edited some time in the past. As a result blocks, threats, and assumptions based on one person's behavior might well impact someone else. (And the actual vandal might well have moved on to a different IP address and be uneffected.) So generally IP addresses only get blocked from editing Wikipedia if their vandalism is recent and continuous. In the case of 12.12.40.18, this was their only edit in almost three months (all the other edits came within a month of each other) so I've gone and given them the "first level" vandalism warning.
So here's the general procedure: Each time they vandalize, if the last warning was tolerably recent (in this case it wasn't) they get another, sterner warning. (I make a point of doing this, not for every vandalism, but for every vandalism after the last warning.) If they keep doing it, they get reported to WP:AIV. Then, a Wikipedia administrator might block the IP, if they think it's the right thing to do. But the instructions on the top of WP:AIV explain, basically, what the criteria are.
The primary solution to the problem of vandalism is revert it. Blocking and page protection and are secondary. -- Why Not A Duck 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Opps - never mind
Users are allowed to blank their talk pages if they so wish, except in very limited circumstances. The history is still visible to all, however. --Rodhullandemu 00:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply; I wasn't lecturing you, I was advising you of policy of which you appeared to be unaware. And this user is well under the collective microscope. However, she is given considerable latitude in managing her talk page; blanking warnings is taken as evidence that they have been read and understood. --Rodhullandemu 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that blanking warnings is unhelpful; but it is allowed. Admins, like myself, will take into account the full history, including previous warnings and blocks, before issuing sanctions. --Rodhullandemu 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi
- Just to say that any editor who is using TW or similar should be looking at the history to make sure that the warning they give is of a sufficient level taking into account any previous warnings that the user may have chosen to delete.
- I for one am aware of this users history and the policy which says that, once you suspect a user of vandalism, you should check their previous edits to make sure they are not doing it elsewhere.
- I only mention this to point out that any person who is capable of using TW or similar is probably already aware of policy on these sort of matters, if not then perhaps they should not be using these sorts of tools.--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please go harass someone else. - hmm - thats not very nice. I was just trying to allay your worries --Chaosdruid (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln the American Abolitionist
First of all, you might want to work on your English skills. Second of all, you clearly did not read my note. Lincoln issued the proclamation for political reasons. He did not engage in abolitionist activities, and freeing slaves was never a main goal of his. I am quite knowledgeable about Abraham Lincoln, while you appear not to be. Lincoln was in no way an abolitionist. Please do not continue to ad this incorrect information, as it is considered disruptive editing. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
--> Your mastery of the English language (or lack thereof) is not relevant to this discussion. Secondly, your asserted premise is erroneous. I did read your note. Your note fails to persuade due to its apparent lack of deference to law and fact and equally apparent flawed understanding of the role of historical consensus in historiography. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln's signature does appear on the Emancipation Proclamation. His signature constitutes a seminal example of "abolitionist activities" for purposes of validly adding the category of "American abolitionists". Lincoln's motivations - political, moral or otherwise - for affixing his signature to this legal instrument are irrelevant to this discussion. In light of these facts, the regard in which you hold your knowledge of the historical record surrounding Abraham Lincoln appears to be exaggerated. Please restore the relevant category to correct your inappropriate removal of that accurate category for the Abraham Lincoln article. Your removal of that accurate category in two instances is considered disruptive editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Houston (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you have twice now added the category "American abolitionists" to Lincoln's page. I have removed it twice. This is because, despite issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln was not considered an abolitionist. He issued the proclamation largely for political reasons. Please do not ad that category again. Thanks.
--> Hello. I noticed you have twice deleted the improvement to Abraham Lincoln's article described above. That deletion is inaccurate. Please replace "American abolitionists" to the tag lists. President Abraham Lincoln promulgated the legal act of emancipation in the United States, and for that reason he operated the act of law that realized abolition in the United States. His act of law in this area makes Abraham Lincoln one of the most fundamental American abolitionists. Please do not disturb the accuracy of this category listing again. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Houston (talk • contribs)
Apologies
I'm very sorry if I made you upset. I'll leave you alone. Bob.--99.145.235.14 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you probably noticed, I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. Keep in mind that WP:A7 should be used only when there is no credible claim of importance or significance at all. The claim that he acted in more than 500 movies is a claim of significance. decltype (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Abraham Lincoln - Chicago raising more men
Because of your watch on the Chicago article, your contribution within the Talk page, and your name, I thought you might like this quote. I got it from The Great Chicago Trivia & Fact Book, published by Cumberland House Publishing, Inc, and written by Connie Goddard and Bruce Hatton Boyer, page 11. Hope you enjoy it. "Gentlemen, after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing war upon the country... It is you who are largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until we had it. You called for Emancipation, and I have given it to you. Whatever you have asked you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for men, which I have made to carry out the war you have demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves... Go home, and raise you 6,000 extra me." ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 1864
Another side of Lincoln, eh? Until I ran across this bit, I hadn't realized Chicago had such influence upon the start of the Civil War. Pknkly (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
CSDs
Hey there! While I'm glad to see other editors working on NPP with me, I thought I'd drop by to discuss Eranjinkeezhil with you. I think you'll find that there was significant context to identify the subject of the article as a place in a specific town in south India, so it did not qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#A1. While it was very difficult to understand, poor English is not a legitimate reason to CSD an article. An admin dropped by my talk page last night and left me these essays to read, and I thought I'd pass them along to you. WP:WIHSD, WP:10CSD, WP:A7M, and WP:FIELD. They helped me out quite a bit! Good luck in your future editing. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability
Do you seriously think ACMI and CFAE are not notable or are you just doing this because you think that deleting articles is a fun game? Adam_sk (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, chill out. It was a valid question. If you think it's non-notable, fine, let's have a discussion about it. But I want to make sure I have someone who disagrees with me as to notability (vs. a bot or someone who deletes every new article he sees) before I waste my time writing out a detailed response. Having confirmed you have a position, please let me know why you think these organizations are non-notable.Adam_sk (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- >If you have sources showing the fact that this company's seal appears on many art materials, then fine, I guess that would make it notable. The issue for both of these articles is sourcing. For the other one, do you have sources showing that the program is notable? The best way to show notability is to add some other sources besides the web pages of the articles subjects. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Look, in my opinion, it's totally unrealistic to expect an article to be perfect within minutes of its being created. CFAE sponsors Youth Art Month, and Youth Art Month is a fairly big deal. I was about to start in on an article on Youth Art Month when you moved to speedily delete the CFAE article.
- And look: I try to abide by Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I hope you do too. I'm sure that your work gets rid of a lot of rinky-dink small businesses that want to advertise by creating Wikipedia pages for themselves, and, as a member of the Wikipedia community, I appreciate that effort. But, on the other hand, I think that before you put in a speedy deletion request, at least give the other editor some time to confirm notability, and at least look at the "What links here" tab and run a couple of Google searches to confirm that something is really non-notable. Do you think that's an out-of-line request on my part? Adam_sk (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. And I don't mean to be a jerk about this. As I said in my first post, if you do think that an article I've created is non-notable, I'm willing to engage you in a conversation as to why that is or is not the case. I don't have any desire to see non-notable stuff going up on Wikipedia either, even if it was created by me - if you think I made a bad call, please let me know.
- But I also think that Wikipedia:Assume good faith means you should make at least some effort to confirm that something is really non-notable before you request deletion. Read the underlying links, run a few Google searches - I don't think it's that difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
- And, again, I speak as someone (who, at least in my mind) is a good Wikipedian, but also as someone who originates a fair number of articles. To my mind, the burden should be on the person requesting deletion to prove something is non-notable. But you seem to be more of a quality-control person (you might also originate articles, but this is the context in which I am encountering you). And maybe, from a quality control perspective, there are just so many crappy articles originated on Wikipedia that the burden should be the other way. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this topic. Adam_sk (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
About that "edit"...
About my disruptive edit to List of television series canceled before airing an episode -- that was my idiot brother. He got upset when I was on the computer when he came home for lunch and forced me off of my computer, then proceeded to delete everything so I could be banned from Wikipedia since according to him, "You spend all day on it editing BULLCRAP!".
I deeply and humbly apologize for my edits, and shall sign out of Wikipedia for a while. Daniel Benfield (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your accepting my apology. Thanks again. Daniel Benfield (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Adult Stem Cell edit
Hi President Lincoln, First of all, I included an Edit Summary. (→Clinical Applications: Removed advertisement). My understanding is that references needed to be to real sources, not to individual websites that are selling a commericial product. Reference 55 listed as "Orthopedic Commercial Application" links to http://www.regenexx.com, a site which promotes an individual's private business, hardly a neutral source! I didnt consider removing an advertisement to be controversial, and my appologies if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbaroodle (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Spanking / Anti-spanking
Hello, a while back you said you agreed with merging Spanking with Anti-spanking (see Talk:Spanking#Spanking_.26_Anti-spanking_merge_proposal.
Would you like to have a look back there and see if you approve of how I am developing all this? It's a bit complicated because there have been several somewhat overlapping articles which I am trying to unravel into clearer categories. Thanks, Alarics (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Idi Amin
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Idi Amin/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Acanthocladium&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Article Creator (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
About "vandalism"
So, do you mind explaining why you reverted my edit on the Adolf Hitler page, which added a sentence about Hitler often being associated with tyranny and evil, as vandalism? Next time, think before you act. I expect an apology on my talk page from you. TheFix63 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not "explicit vandalism," good job trying to save face. You accused me of vandalism; no rational being thinks I was vandalizing anything. Are you going to say you were wrong and retract your accusation or not? Also, if it doesn't belong in the article, please take it to the talk page and see how many people are on your side. I doubt you'll get very far. TheFix63 (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you ever going to say you were wrong for saying I was vandalizing the article? It's as simple as that, and stubbornness on your part won't end the situation. By the way, I did take my case to the talk page. TheFix63 (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Christ. OK then, how was I vandalizing the article with that edit? Explain. TheFix63 (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dont delete Im working on it now.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whats the code for the underdevelopment tag? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a new record for a speedy nomination, I believe. 1 minute. Congrats. (I doubt you had time to read even a bit of the reference from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography). --Stormbay (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for the tone above but the speedy db is one of my pet peeves. Try watching articles for a few hours before tagging them, if you are not sure. In many cases of new stubs, I will place the info that appears to be missing in 15 minutes or less. If the article does not improve, it can easily be tagged later. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
CSD work, in particular A7s
Hi there, I notice you've been on new page patrol lately, and have been tagging a few pages with the {{db-person}} tag. I'd just like to remind you that any claim of importance whatsoever (unless patently and obviously false) makes an article ineligible for this criteria. The article does not have to meet WP:N or be in a state that it would survive AFD, just a claim is good enough. A couple of the pages that you've tagged recently, like Savitri Jindal (claims that she's India's richest woman), Kevin Grayson (I don't understand American football, but the speedy was declined and he looks notable enough as a college player), Mert Öcal (won a competition, has appeared on TV), and Horace Bélanger (multiple third-party sources presented, thus implying notability), were not eligible for deletion in this way.
A lot of the anti-vandal work you're doing is of top quality, just please be careful with tagging stuff A7. In general a good rule is "if you're not 100% sure it's eligible, it's probably not". I'll be happy to assist you further or answer any questions you might have on this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC).
Editing courtesy and knowledge
I refer to your edits and edit summary in the article for Oliver's Twist (horse). While I accept an assumed good intent and your right to insert a "Speedy delete" tag after you have carefully assessed a new article, but your additional edits included an unacceptable summary remark that reads: "(Reverted 5 edits by Craiglduncan identified as vandalism to last revision by Tad Lincoln. using TW)". Not only was your assertion false, it was unwarranted and was insulting to a legitimate contributor whom you apparently never bothered to check out before publicly acccusing them of being a vandal. Also, you made edits [1] to the article that demonstrate you have little or no knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, the French language, and the policies in place by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. I think we all need to stick to editing things we know. Thank you for your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't add lying to your behaviour and don't call me a liar. You in fact made edits that unequivocally demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, the French language, and the policies in place by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. This is not about arguing, but about building an encyclopedia through cooperation. And no, it is not vandalism in any sense of the work in the circumstances it happened with the user you degraded because your conduct was out of line, willy-nilly, and without any thought given to it. When we don't have knowledge on a subject, and you have none on TBR, common Wiki etiquette says check the person who created the article and see their credentials and consult accordingly. In fact, there are those who might well believe it was your reckless action and insult that was an act of vandalism. By virtue of your reaction to constructive criticsm, and in light of your conduct on this, and, as I have seen, on other matters, I have to wonder what exactly you do here. Thank you again for your cooperation. Have a g'day, mate. Handicapper (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please review the edit summaries, the talk page of the user adding the info, and consider the likelihood given the tone that the info is a copyright vio. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(again)
Insulated glazing
Hi Tad,
Thanks for the heads-up!
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Article does not meet criterion
Hello Tad, I declined speedy deletion for Red clover extract, because the article does not meet G11. WP:G11 is for "pages that are exclusively promotional", which is not the case for that article, which contains largely information that is independent of the specific company whose external link was added. Some of this could be merged into Trifolium pratense, or the page could be changed to a redirect to that article. Obviously, there are issues with the article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be speedily deleted. — Sebastian 08:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
murder victim
I'd suggest adding more details such as death by railroad tie, and guy stomping on his head, etc. Glenn Beck is just one commentator, it would be good to add other voices and commentary from articles that are out there. I just realized GB didn't even name the student that died.Bachcell (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tad, I just declined one of your speedies because as far as I could see the author wasn't making the request. Did I miss something? ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Miss Me Kiss Me Likk Me
Hello Tad Lincoln, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Miss Me Kiss Me Likk Me - a page you tagged - because: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I "userfied" the article you nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Purple Rain
Cool - I found this.... I am NOT a wikipeadian, but do think the meaning added belongs in the heading. Purple and rain do not show up together in a dictionary and it took a reasonible search to find what it did mean. I thought putting it in would be a GOOD thing for the site. Forget the wikipideia is not a dictionary blast - think about what you're deleting just because it was added as a noun ... sheesh. - think about it. I am done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.214.101 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
please be more careful of what you put up for deletion, being unfamiliar with an org is not a sufficient reason for deletion. please back up your claims.
Calcio20 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tad Lincoln, your suggestions on Gamal Abdel Nasser are very helpful and provide a neutral point of view to Al Ameer Son and me. If you have some more time and could review the sections from Military Career to Later Life (since these have received significant improvements) we would be really glad. We are trying to aim at FA quality, for that we're still expanding for comprehensiveness. Thanks for your constructive comment, and I hope you continue reviewing the article. Thank you :)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tad, I would like to thank you for very much for reviewing those additions. I had that feeling it was too complimenting of Nasser. As you can see from my user page, I'm a fan of the man, but have tried to keep my neutrality when expanding the article. Nonetheless, someone like yourself (or as you put it a "third party") will definitely be needed to keep extra eyes on the material added. I will continue to expand the family info and other sections and I hope that you could give the new info a critical review so that we could further improve the article. As Diaa said above, we're going for an eventual FA. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. For the passage you put into the quote box at user talk page, could you give a suggestion on how to tighten it. The main point to put it bluntly is that "Nasser preferred to have private family life outside the public eye and that he would spend as much time as he could afford with his children." The only reason I want something along these lines mentioned is because the sources I have read (Aburish, Alexander, and Sullivan in articular) all stress it in detail. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I used your suggestion. Diaa and I will be expanding more very soon and often, so yes, we would appreciate your help greatly. We'll keep in touch on the issue and you should probably put the article's talk page on your watchlist if you haven't already because we'll probably use that for most discussions. Thanks again Tad. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
McReynolds
Hi; I reverted the edit you made to James Clark McReynolds. The {{who}} tag is used for weasel words and vague attributions made in the editorial voice of Wikipedia, not for tagging straight quotations attributed to individuals. Here you had a quotation made by McReynolds; if you believe it was unclear on who it refered to, it could be addressed on the talk page, or could be explained in the text later. In any case, the {{who}} tag is used to request specific citations of facts, so it is not appropriate; see the "In a nutshell" box in the weasel words page. To let you know who McReynolds was talking about, he was still talking about Benjamin Cardozo: his father had been a judge, but was forced to resign in a corruption scandal. Magidin (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)