Messages/Talk

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Zurishaddai/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism patrol

Thanks for sorting out my page! -- Hoary 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure thing. — MichaelLinnear 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Signing

Thank you for signing my autograph book. Haven't had people sign for a while until you did. :)

Thank you again

Captain panda In vino veritas 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlameViper

Actually I knew of his community ban minutes after YankSox carried it out. I wasn't sure if I should add the DYK template to his user talk page, and I even asked a few guys at IRC, but I just decided to add it anyway, in all fairness. Nishkid 64 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. — MichaelLinnear 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha.

I was browsing Elaragirl's talk page, saw the red "User was banned for this post". I thought, "what 4channer put this in", then I lol'd. Trying to usurp moot, are we? ;) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 06:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)\\[reply]

I heard Flameviper was a 4channer, so it seemed like what he would've wanted. — MichaelLinnear 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese family names?

I notice on Wikipedia Chinese family names are handled inconsistently. It can be hard to tell if you don't know Chinese. Is there a convention used on Wikipedia like capitalizing the family name? DavidCowhig 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that you would capitalize the family name. I don't know chinese either so I'm not really qualified to answer. — MichaelLinnear 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on my talk page

please dont question my religion i am christian and i think homosexuality is wrong--yells at soup | Talk 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't. It's just that in the past users have gotten in trouble over content on their userpage. — MichaelLinnear 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gawd i removed it happy now >_< --yells at soup | Talk 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, I was just giving you a heads-up. Some people here are very particular about userpages. — MichaelLinnear 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I appreciate your... support... on Uncyclopedia, but I would be careful reverting changes to Spanish text unless you know what it's saying, this actually restored incorrect Spanish. Milto LOL pia 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm apparently an idiot. Embarrassingly enough, I have 3 years of Spanish classes behind me, I should have have definitely known about that. Guess I'm rusty. — MichaelLinnear 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — MichaelLinnear 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reversions

Hey the ^{[citation needed]} tags were a joke. The page is a humorous one. You could have at least used the talk page before undoing somebody's work. Seriously. I won't bother reverting it back, but I hope you will reconsider and change it back yourself. It's HUMOR. Sue Rangell 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Sure, I reverted for you. ^{[citation needed]} It just makes it harder to read. — MichaelLinnear 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I really had no idea. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You didn't either. — MichaelLinnear 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got me on that one. It didn't even occur to me that I needed to subst the subst when I was telling you to subst. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihalo

	The Wikihalo Award	The Wikihalo Award You are aces with me MichaelLinnear. Thanks for being so cool and understanding. It's a pleasure to have met you. Keep up the good work! Awarded by Sue Rangell 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]	This award was introduced by The Neokidon 21 January 2006.

Thank you for your kind words. :) — MichaelLinnear 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, you have my full confidence. — MichaelLinnear 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed usernames

I didn't know about Sean's username change (but I did about Matthew, I was just a bit too lazy). Thanks. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. — MichaelLinnear 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

I notice that you reverted to kill a link to the list of all Uncyclopedias in the Uncyclopedia article. You do realize that a "list of all Wikia-hosted Uncyclopedias" is *not* the same as a "list of all Uncyclopedias"? Uncyclopedia exists in over thirty languages, scattered across multiple hosts in at least two continents. Wikia only hosts a portion of this mess. --66.102.80.239 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and it was a larger list so I added it back. — MichaelLinnear 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No separatism please

Get out secessionists. PRC is not controlling all China. Taiwan is still under ROC renmants. Stop using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote HK, Macau and Taiwan separatism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pointe (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My dear sweet Instanood, what drives you to this? — MichaelLinnear 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pointe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You cannot win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLinnear (talk • contribs)

Are you or have you ever been a Communist? — MichaelLinnear 02:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

Just so you know (and you already do), Nathan has emailed oversight-l about this edit, calling it defamation, and, to be honest, some of it isn't true - i.e. he didn't beat his girlfriend. It's best to take LJDrama with a pinch of salt due to its links with ED (which have been unkind to Nathan).

Oh, and a Checkuser on Caro will prove inconclusive - Nathan changed his IP a couple of weeks after the block (due to an argument about an internet connection with his roommate, I believe). It looked a bit fishy before the block, but I haven't interacted with Caro before that. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both used the same email address. — MichaelLinnear 01:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that's a really embarassing mistake on his part. By the way, this post is supposed to be about that edit - Nathan isn't happy about it, and he asked me to at least say something about it. (I don't have contact with him anymore, though.) Please be careful about LJD/ED, and take what they say with a pinch of salt. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been oversighted and is now gone. — MichaelLinnear 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You be careful too, Sceptre. An editor who I think is him has been on your talk page :-O

Anyway, Michael, can you plz enable email, thanx. Milto LOL pia 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enabled it. — MichaelLinnear 06:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Local newspaper here in town will be doing a piece on my contributions on wikipedia in case you're wondering why I blanked my talk and user pages. I've been told by a wikipedia moderator (who also happens to be from my hometown) to possibly expect vandalism on my user page and the Hamilton, Ontario article page on Monday after the article gets published in the papers. Nhl4hamilton 08:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the late reply. I put that there as a joke after seeing these edits. You're obviously a long time editor, so I thought you were testing a script or maybe just having a little fun. — MichaelLinnear 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael

Dear Michael, although I'm not sure what "meh" means... ;) I wanted to thank you for your concern, your kind removal of that "material" and your thoughtful and considerate words to me.
I hope those unfortunate matters don't get in the way of a future friendship between us.
Again, thanks, and take care! :)

Phaedriel - 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedriel, thank you for your kind words. By "Meh" I just meant I had thought it over and realized that my note didn't need to be publicly on Miltopia's page, in open viewing of everybody and their brother. I'll see how those other things work out. You take care too. — MichaelLinnear 05:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian reversal

Hi Michael. I just wanted to tell you that I reverted your redirect on Russian reversal to Yakov Smirnoff, because it was asked to be split per this discussion; and you can't really merge a page that was split by consensus. It ain't right. But if you really want to have it back on the Yakov Smirnoff page, then I suggest you propose a merge. Thought I'd let you know. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected because the content was already in the Yakov Smirnoff article, the Russian Reversal page was also completely unsourced and somewhat incoherent. — MichaelLinnear 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the page with {{cleanup}}. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — MichaelLinnear 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey MichaelLinnear. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for the late reply. Better luck next time. Best, --MichaelLinnear 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:User:Certified.Gangsta

Actually, he can and is serious. There was a gigantic mess surrounding that banner, which resulted in an equally gigantic conversation that decided he should not use it because it simply annoys some people to death, confuses bot editors, and serves no constructive purpose. So please stop aiding his disruption. --tjstrf talk 06:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it actually seemed like Sumple (talk • contribs) was baiting him deliberately.. — MichaelLinnear 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like the other way around. He knows it annoys people, but insists on readding it. --tjstrf talk 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that big of a deal, someone baiting him is. — MichaelLinnear 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to WP:CN

I have reverted the removal of discussion. Please see the thread on WT:CN regarding this issue. Thanks, Navou 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:L.P, Cheshunt

I reverted L.P, Cheshunt's talk page to show the warnings. Apologies if I was wrong to do so--Cailil ^talk 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. I just saw that he stopped vandalizing and was asking questions at the ref desk, so I was trying to see if he could be steered in the right direction. — MichaelLinnear 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, now he's blocked for disruption. No loss. — MichaelLinnear 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert?

I'm not sure why you are reverting my tagging of images for a lack of source. Wikipedia policy is very clear that all images uploaded - PD or not - should provide a source. An image without a source is like a fact without a reference - there is no way of checking if they are what they say they are. I know its a pain but I'm just tagging a problem. an admin will decide whether to delete! Madmedea 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think that it was a good idea to tag them for imminent deletion. — MichaelLinnear 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred you actions to the Administrator's noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Madmedea 23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. — MichaelLinnear 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon

Michael, please do not summarily revert Madmedea's edits, it is wholly improper, unwarranted and rude. Did you even look at Image:27139.jpg? Pray tell how that is is PD-art. --Iamunknown 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself on that image. It is not PD-art. — MichaelLinnear 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2LORD-ROSEBERY.gif

Responded to your comment on my talk. Giano 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I see I left it the message with the wrong person. Apologies Giano 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — MichaelLinnear 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

What did you do to deserve having your talk page cleared 8 times by the same vandal? Just wondering lol. Streetsabre 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was my comment on Will Beback's talkpage. This guy is a piece of work. — MichaelLinnear 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Attachment Therapy article

As an outsider and uninvoled party, your comments at [[1]] regarding a raging dispute about this and several other related articles would be much appreciated. DPeterson^talk 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. — MichaelLinnear 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Tipping

Please talk about your edits on the talk page before changing the caption, as there is a large debate and consensus about how it is now. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I left a note on the talk page and will see what happens. — MichaelLinnear 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fooled you.

User:Destructo 087/Userboxes/Fooled You deserve this.

Link removal for internet meme

Why did you remove the link I put up? It clearly relates to the subject

Thanks for the revert

Hi, I wanted to thank you for the revert of Tony's edits to my userspace userbox. Just noticed it my watchlist myself. Best wishes! Charon X/talk 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, it just seemed to be an attempt to stir up more drama, and drag the third rail of userboxes into it. — MichaelLinnear 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at WP:NPA

I was forced to protect WP:NPA due to edit warring which you were involved in. We prefer to keep our policy pages editable to the public. When the protection expires I will be more inclined to block people for edit warring than to protect the policy again. In the future please discuss these things on the talk page and come to a consensus. Do not argue by reverting back and forth on a policy page. ^(H) 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:(

Change of mind

Hmm? Does that mean it's an insane suggestion, that it has no hope of success, or just that it'd be good to have more drama? ;-) --YFB ¿ 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above! No, more like the middle one. --MichaelLinnear 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this. --MichaelLinnear 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Heights Riot

Hi, Regarding the Crown Heights Riot article, slapping a npov on an article without indicating what 'disputed' fact or reference makes it so calls upon editors to be mind-readers. You may be correct, but without indicating what rises to the level of a npov, you have not provided a productive edit. On the talk/discussion page, several people have suggested there needs to be a balance from the 'Black' point of view, which of course is entirely welcome, and essential, in presenting an encyclopedic synopsis of the events. Apparently, in the time since this article has been banged around by various editors, there has been insufficient movement in that regard in the view of some posters, who could have served as editors if they were so informed. Putting a npov on an article without any explanation is one of the main reasons why, excluding donations to the project that keep it afloat, wikipedia will fail in the minds of scholars.Edstat 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the talk page, saw some of the comments there, and then put on the tag for that reason. --MichaelLinnear 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more on Crown Heights

Yes, MichaelLinnear, the talk page is filled with npov, anti-Semitism, racism, etc. But you put the npov tag on the article, not the Talk page!

Also, stating the light was "either red or yellow" is not factual as to what the light was. According to the police report, witnesses differed on this. What is a fact is that while going the the intersection, a traffic accident occurred.

Yes, the sources said it was "either red or yellow." --MichaelLinnear 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More more on Crown Heights

Now you are making the articl into a npov! The allegation by previous editors is that the driver was not arrested, even though the person who was struck was killed. A reporter went through the polic blotter and found nearly two dozen cases where Chassidim were struck and killed by motorists from the 'Black' community, but were not arrested. If you believe the latter point is irrelevant, then so too must the first identical statement. I'm beginning to suspect your intentions, as both the statements about the driver and about other similar accidents are verified facts.

Why does it matter that Yosef Lifsh wasn't arrested? He didn't commit any crime. --MichaelLinnear 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Lifsh

There are those in the 'Black' community who expressed the opinion for the record that the police did not arrest Lifsh for invol. manslaughter. That is part of the anger that they felt was pent up. Part of the return "rock throwing" by Chassidim on the 2nd night of the riot was due to pent up anger that there had been about 20 chassidim killed by "black" motorists, and none were arrested for invol. manslaughter. Both of these items contributed to the riot.Edstat 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

traffic light

The witness reports were confused and mixed. According to some reports, Lifsh was continuing through the intersection legally; according to other reports the light was red. The point, here, is that the statment at best, could be "witnesses were unclear on the status of the traffic light" - but that conveys what is NOT known, not what is known. Of course, factually, it had to be one or the other - it is not possible to be both at the same time. If you have a link indicating a citation was given to the driver due inappropriately continuing through an intersection, it indeed should be cited. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear here - the point of an encylopedia (I don't mean to be disrespectful), is to indicate what is known about the incident.Edstat 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, nobody ever pays attention until after the accident has happened. Since we will never know at this point I am fine with it being gone. --MichaelLinnear 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the repetition

I put in a comment but must have hit the wrong key, so I apologize if this appears twice. I'm mentioning that I think you should tone done "Mob of Angry Blacks". There were some angry bystanders on the street, but calling the a "mob" is over the top language, don't you think? Because he was robbed, I suspect this initial event occurred for reasons other than the why the riot "grew in scale". (<- You are correct; riots are never in control.Edstat 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it worked, it only showed up once. I changed it to "assaulted and robbed by the crowd formed at the accident scene." --MichaelLinnear 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Thank you for undoing that edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --MichaelLinnear 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edits

JoshuaZ 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome and nice work too. --MichaelLinnear 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my lame duck RfA, you made me laugh. I needed it. IvoShandor 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's disappointing to see what's happening there. --MichaelLinnear 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL F***ING ROK YOUR SHIT.

This has got to be the funniest **support** vote on an RfA in the history of Wikipedia. You read me?! *—Gaff ^ταλκ* 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. XD --MichaelLinnear 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hello Zurishaddai/Archive 1, I just wanted to thank you for giving your comments at my recent RFA. While it didnt pass (I withdrew after it became apparent that the RFA was "sinking like the titanic" =]), I will try to focus on and build upon your comments, and the comments of all the other Wikipedians who participated. Thanks again for voicing your opinion, and I wish you very happy editing! Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Ivoshandor's RFA mentioned above, all things will be forgotten with time, and I hope you heed what you have learned and better luck in the future. Best, --MichaelLinnear 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Severloh

G'day. Did you read the discussion on Severloh before deleting the reference to him from Omaha Beach. I am trying to build up some sort of agreement on how to handle him. If you read the talk section there is much discussion about him. Your wholesale deletion hasn't really helped the discussion. What evidence to you have that Severloh is a hoax? If you do, please provide references and comment in the 'criticism' section of the Severloh article. Thanks Gillyweed 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke, fine I'll leave it in the article. No serious text on Omaha Beach has ever mentioned him, and that speaks for itself. --MichaelLinnear 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support and defense in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lc to be unbanned

It says so on WP:AN/I —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

Says you. :) --MichaelLinnear 23:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious accusation

Either you are Fortuny, or you are from Encyclopedia Dramatica. You're not fooling anyone. I did a search on your name. You're a hoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.122.39 (talk • contribs)

"A hoax" More like a legend. --MichaelLinnear 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiResources

Thanks for the edit of User:Cumbrowski/WikiResources. That was an excellent solution for the problem, even though I prefer linking to the source (see how Wikipedia influences people how to do things? :) ). Somebody who is seeking out information and ends up on pages like mine and takes the time to read it, will come accross it anyway. I'd rather point it out myself than try to hide it (which never works, because the harder you try the more attention it will get). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was probably the best compromise that could've come out of that situation. --MichaelLinnear 08:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear in Jamestown article and why was this reverted

It has been reported that a posting on an unnamed website that Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network on October 17 2004. However, the statement or any references to this unnamed website have since not been provided for independant public verification. [2][3][4] Around this time a group calling itself "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafydayn" appeared or gained attention. This group was called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" in western media reports and it was stated, however without proof, that this was the new name of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. [5]

It is all true based on what is known. If the actual website is not referenced or no source is provided than it is simply reported without proof. -Lft6771 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late revert on Condom

You did surprise me with the revert, but a quick look at your contributions made it clear that you're a vandal-fighter. :) --健次(derumi)talk 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to clear that up. --MichaelLinnear 06:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy article link

Your finding of a reliable news site link to replace the so-called "attack site" link people were warring over was a good solution to the mess... except that when I tried it, the 24hrs.ca link didn't seem to work. *Dan T.* 12:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, it was working a couple of weeks ago when I added it to the Brandt article, it must've just stopped. --MichaelLinnear 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H

Agreed, it's very unlikely. I just thought there ought to be an additional deterrent since a non-Wikipedian was dragged into it. To me, that was particularly beyond the pale. My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that a community ban technically lasts until an admin is willing to unblock--but anyone who would unblock ColScott under the circumstances has no business being an admin. Blueboy 96 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating to have such a limited ability to respond to something like this, but I think the best thing to do is move on. Legally, there isn't much that can be done, harassment across international borders, would be extremely difficult to pursue a legal remedy for. I believe JzG archived the ANI discussion on H's request, so he probably wants to just get on with his life. By the way though, I am pretty sure that HighInBC was outed by editors he had previously banned, pedophile-pov pushers (please see this link [6]), and ColScott and later the GNAA just picked up on that information. And I don't think any admin outside of an official action would ever unblock him, but I don't think there is any need for a standing threat on the issue, that bridge can be crossed if it ever comes, which it hopefully won't. Remember you friend, but respect the difficult decision he had to make, and don't give them the satisfaction of our attention either. --MichaelLinnear 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia campaign

Thanks for that. Yes, I'd seen it and also seen some of the "BC" messages that it references. But it's a more comprehensive view than I'd had before. I've already forwarded that link to the ArbCom, as they are watching this issue. Several "MAA" editors have claimed there's "no conspiracy", but that page shows that there has been a concerted effort to alter WP's content. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, glad to see that the administrators and ArbCom are on top of this. --MichaelLinnear 00:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Washita River

Was that a revert back to before Custerwest got hold of it? In this case, one I'd favor based on my brief acquaintance with this article today, but wish your edit summary reflected what version you went back to. Regards --Yksin 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a revert back before the events of today, and yes, I definitely should've used the edit summary to reflect that. My mistake and I apologize for any confusion it caused. --MichaelLinnear 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Maybe you could clarify in the article's talk page? It seems as if Custerwest's website anyway is a very POV site; the article no doubt can stand for improvement including better sourcing, but his was not the way. --Yksin 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a note. --MichaelLinnear 01:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for piping in, I hope you've got time to keep an eye on the article and contribute to making it a good one. Cheers! Murderbike 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Custerwest

I see you're not an admin, but can you help with this? I've never bothered with 3RR stuff before, and don't really understand the process, or why no admin has noticed this yet. Thanks. Murderbike 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the 3RR process myself, but there is already a report about this user at the incidents noticeboard [7]. Adding some of the stuff you put on the AIV noticeboard might help. --MichaelLinnear 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Murderbike 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Michael Linnear

Michael,

Thanks for your kind welcome. I'm getting the sense that the Wikipedia community is quite friendly (and thoughtful).

I've been working hard on the Ebon Fisher wiki and attempting to get all the references straight. Any help you can offer is very welcome. Some formatting might help.

-Trollpedia

So far your references look good. I have trouble often with the templates myself, but I'll try to help. --MichaelLinnear 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the references for you with the {{reflist}} template. --MichaelLinnear 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Thanks for the note. I'm fairly used to MONGOs drive-by insults by now. Thanks for watching my user page.

The NYT article is interesting in how it addresses ED. WP probably accounts for less than 5% of the site, yet some people get so freakin' fixated on it. I suppose that kind of in-passing reference wouldn't take time to explain it in any other context considering the rest of the article.

My only contributions to ED in relation to WP are pure satire of policies, not attacks on people. Read the Woman article on ED (particularly pre-2006), then go back and read the conversation about what the title of the US State terrorism article should be here. It's kind of sad that MONGO thinks I have complete editorial control there to make anything I don't like go away when he knows that nobody has that power here either. SchmuckyTheCat 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, its sad when arguments just end up being people spouting the alphabet soup at each other. It's frustrating when something as interesting as the US's checkered geopolitical history ends up being a battle like that. My view on the title, is that when I look at the State terrorism article, it seems to be about allegations, as everything is under that heading. Either way it's stupid as the content is better explained in the individual articles about the separate overseas actions, rather than some grand over-extending mess like it is now. Trying to link events on some four different continents into one consistent course of action by the US government seems to be overreaching. --MichaelLinnear 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's all the same policy. LamontCranston 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The US government isn't one single organism acting as an individual. And I doubt that the very different men who have spent time in the Oval Office would agree that they were all following the same master course. --MichaelLinnear 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Washita River

Thanks. I'm sorry to be leaving this discussion too, but I'm plain fed up with HanzoHattori's perverse obstinacy about learning even the least little bit about Wikipedia policies, or how history is actually written for that matter. Makes me wonder how accurate the Srebrenica (sp?) article really is. Better for me to get out of there before banging my head against such sheer [several uncomplimentary nouns involving intelligence levels come to mind here] leads me into deep doo-doo for making personal attacks. Yikes. I'll probably still keep an eye on the article, but I'm tired of fighting this battle against sheer [same uncomplimentary nouns] so much on my own. If other people were to step up to the plate on that score, I'll be glad to join in again to shore up an intelligent & balance, non-POV consensus against his (as well as Custerwest's) POV-pushing & rampant [same set of uncomplimentary nouns again]. This could be a damn good article, if neither his nor Custerwest's POV's are permitted to rule. --Yksin 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it protected (literally!) while things are hashed out on the talk page is a great idea, and seems to have calmed down the strife there. --MichaelLinnear 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back, as I am glad to have come back. The strife comes back with CW, of course, but I think HanzoHattori might be persuaded to work towards consensus with at least those of us who aren't CW. I'm hoping he will, anyway, as before I was finding it as impossible to work with him as it's been to work with CW -- as is apparent from my very frustrated comment above. (Coming also on a day that I was hit by a depression brought on by overconsumption of fast food that I don't habitually eat.) I know it's doing me good anyway to see other editors popping up again, both you & HH. I'm hoping that Murderbike will turn up again too. He hasn't been around for a couple of days. --Yksin 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the kind words. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

Michael,

Thanks so much for helping with the "interactive" footnotes on E. Fisher's wiki. They work like a charm.

Best, Trollpedia

Your welcome, glad to help. --MichaelLinnear 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Cheers, Lig hts has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

If the Wiki community is to be friendly, it should not be by making intimidating statements like "I know who you are." Also, there should be no need to suppress facts concerning the lack of relationship between al Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden. (MTSC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.174.168 (talk • contribs)

But I do. --MichaelLinnear 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ED

Please vote "overturn" on the ED DRV. Ratherduarm 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't waste my time at DRV. --MichaelLinnear 02:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know someone who is? I can't just let the anti-EDers try to keep this clearly sourcable site deleted. Ratherduarm 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alkivar voted to overturn, I guess that is something. Anyone who thinks that the Arbitration Committee's link ban, has anything to do with the possible existence of an article is profoundly misguided. As if the Mediawiki spam blacklist has anything to do with writing an article, what a strange belief. --MichaelLinnear 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian reversal

Hello again. I've reverted your edit because you redirected the page against consensus, especially since consensus was for the page to be split. However, since that proposed split was some time ago, you can gain a new consensus by proposing a merge. If consensus then says to merge it, then feel free to do so. Simply add {{mergeto|Yakov Smirnoff}} onto the Russian reversal page, {{mergefrom|Russian reversal}} to the Yakov Smirnoff page, and give your reason why you believe it should be merged on the Yakov Smirnoff talk page. --AAA! (AAAA) 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]