User talk:BaseballDetective/Archive 1

Archive 1

Don't forget to sign

Hey, great work on reverting vandalism & warning those who do vandalize. But you seem to have forgotten (at least a couple of times) to sign after leaving a talk page message. Just a reminder, place four tildes ("~", like this: ~~~~) after your message to leave your signature & a timestamp. WP:SIG has more info. -- Scientizzle 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you, BaseballDetective, for removing the recent instances of vandalism on the Roman Catholic Church article. One is tempted to post on the vandal's page, "Your lameness is exceeded only by your bogosity." But thankfully, one doesn't give in to that temptation.

Thanks again. Ivain 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

You are to be commended on your efforts to fight vandalism. However, I noticed that you gave a level 3 warning to User talk:76.177.193.163 on the user's first offense. The edit that you reverted was the user's first edit and could have easily been a mistake or a test edit. Please review WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Thanks and happy editing. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey, I am, well, an IP Adress, but I would like to thank you. What edits can I add to the Dodge Hornet page to make it a bit better, I know alot of information on it, I read the Wiki Information, now what? I think it looks great! What is wrong with it? Thanks, Ben. (On here comment back via the user User:Online now.)

In my experience, the way this guy is commenting, it seems almost trollish (WP:DNFT). He left comments for me too. He may be genuinely new and not know better, but I'd be careful not to get into a pissing match because it might just end up going in circles. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Hello. I'm sorry, but I reverted your re-addition of a copyright violation into Smithfield Foods. Wikipedia can only accept text that is available under the GFDL or a compatible license. Under the Berne Convention, all creative works are automatically copyrighted, so unless the copyright holder explicitly releases a work under a license we can accept, we can't use that work. Furthermore, the Smithfield Foods site explicitly states that the content is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. Don't worry, copyright is often difficult to understand. If you wish, you might want to take a look at the copyright policy, which tries to make some of these issues clearer. Also, please don't take my revert as some sort of disciplinary action. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated. No problem at all. BaseballDetective 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

William Henry Clarence

I had to remove material from this article. There was a weird stub in there that reproduced somebody's resume! Check it out. Look at a past edition of the article. MiFeinberg 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Erik Moss

Hey Baseball!

I fixed a small typo you made in the delete tag you placed on User:Erik Moss. Cheers Xdenizen 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: TREOS & Fake ID

B.P. disowns all work prior to 2004 (at least for right now). Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.248.145 (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

COI? Conflict of Interest? Fine. B.P. will be gone as you know him soon, then, anyhow. His life is the internet's, his fate in the hands of IP Addresses like you.

Syahrir page

Hi, thanks for notifying us. I don't know Syahrir who that the article points about, but if it is Sutan Sjahrir, then the article is already there and it is a prominent Indonesian politician in 1945s. Thanks again. — Indon (reply) — 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I don't know about that Syahrir, though I was there when the event occured. I can't remember that name as one of the leader during the 1998 revolution. Anyway, I think you have done the right way, informing Indonesian editors. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Capt. Sunil Khokhar: Aksi_great Discussion

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. Vir Chakra is a notable honour in India. As told to you by Utcursch, take the article to AfD if you think it does not deserve to be kept at wikipedia. Aksi_great (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my edits, the fact remains that notability was not claimed at all in any way in the article in queston for Capt. Sunil Khokhar. If someone were to simply write two sentences and say they received the Congressional Medal of Honor I would react the same way. Both are proud achievements, but notability requires more than hearsay: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." --BaseballDetective 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then your interpretation of notability is incorrect. If someone wrote an article about a person getting the medal of honour, and if you tag it with csd-a7, then I suggest you stop tagging articles and read WP:BIO first. If a "person has received notable awards or honors" then he/she is notable. Now you could argue with the fact that there are no references on the article. But that is not a csd criteria yet for a good reason. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Even following your links to WP:BIO it clearly states "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." It does not say that it should be done in absence, but it in fact states that outside verifiability should be EASIER if someone falls in such catategory because there would be pubically accessible records. In this case there is (1) a link to a dead page and (2) a link to a bodybuilding competion in the name of the person. Nowhere near notable or verifiable. --BaseballDetective 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to keep in mind the fact that this is an article about a person in India. There may not be much material about it on the web. I noticed that you summarily removed two links from the page. And I'm not debating the fact that in the end this may be a non-notable person. Just that these articles should not be tagged under csd-a7. Do remember that CSD-A7 was created to deal with vanity articles and not to get rid of bio-stubs which may or may not have references. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the links that were removed were not arbitrary at all. In this case there is (1) a link to a dead page and (2) a link to a bodybuilding competion in the name of the person. Nowhere near notable or verifiable. But do I enjoy reading each excuse you're making for what is simply a poorly put together article that has no notability cliams whatsoever. --BaseballDetective 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Capt. Sunil Khokhar: Utcursch Discussion

I've no views on whether Capt. Sunil Khokhar is notable or not, but you're wrongly tagging the article. Please review the deletion criteria. The article says that he has won Vir Chakra. Even if doesn't provide any references, it cannot be deleted as CSD. In such cases you should tag the article with {{unreferenced}} and PROD it.

And please stop giving warnings on my talk page -- read the text of the template {{db-bio}}. Anybody except the creator of the article can remove the tag. If you disagree, the next step is not reverting, but using prod or AfD. I appreciate your anti-vandalism work, but like it has been pointed out earlier, you need to keep WP:BITE in mind. utcursch | talk 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my edits, the fact remains that notability was not claimed at all in any way in the article in queston for Capt. Sunil Khokhar. If someone were to simply write two sentences and say they received the Congressional Medal of Honor I would react the same way. Both are proud achievements, but notability requires more than hearsay: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other."

Regarding warnings, I'm sorry but you are simply blanking valid concerns and reverting unfounded gossip about someone who can't be verified. If you believe I am abusing my right to do so, I welcome you to report my actions. --BaseballDetective 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I know your edits are in good faith, and the subject doesn't seem to be notable. But, {{db-bio}} should be used only when there is no assertion of notability. A claim of being President of United States can be tagged with {{nonsense}} and deleted. But in this case, the external links confirm that he is a soldier who died during a battle in Siachen. Even if the article doesn't provide references for Vir Chakra, it cannot be deleted as CSD. It should be proded instead (which I've already done). utcursch | talk 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The external links provide 100% of nothing. One is a link to a dead page. The other is a link to a body buidling competition and nothing more. Had you followed them to begin with instead of blanking my tags, you might have come to the same conclussion sooner. --BaseballDetective 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This link confirms that he is a soldier who died in some battle. The guy is most probably non-notable, but not non-notable enough for a CSD. BTW, I've deleted Rajesh Vedprakash and protected new and unregistered users from re-creating it. utcursch | talk 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the link. But you do realize that the link in the original article did not go to the URL you now showed me? And that if you knew about that URL you should have simply added it to the article with your other edits and comments? Ultimately, verifiable information trumps all. And you did a fine job in this case. --BaseballDetective 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Warning for an Anti-Semite

You gave me a Test3 vandal warning for reasons for which I can't understand. When did I vandalize? I am a Consturctive editor as my contributions history prove, I have never vandalized. I just ask for a brief clarification on the matter. I mean I could be wrong here. But I sure am confused about this. I however assume good faith on your part so I just would humblely ask for a short response. Cheers! Sincerely, --John Guy Royers 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-Semitic posts and edits speak volumes. At the rate you're going you'll be banned sooner than the next time you have a meal. --BaseballDetective 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, BD, your edits are most certainly vandalism. Quit it now or I will block you. This is your only warning. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Have you seen what John Guy Royers contributed to the Flag of Israel page? --14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the anon before him that put in the Nazi flag. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I saw that. But did you see his edits? They are clearly there simply to provide false POV and incite what is happening now? The guy has existed less than 24 hours, makes no specific answers towards those changes and you're disciplining me? Please, REREAD HIS EDITS! I cannot be clearer --BaseballDetective 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At most it was a content dispute. It certainly did not warrant this edit summary [1] and vandalism warnings. He existed less that 24 hours. Ok, Either he's a sock of someone else- so prove it. Or he's a new contributor- which makes your conduct even worse, see WP:BITE. WjBscribe 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if that's the way it's going to be, so be it. But I don't think this guy is going to edit a Pokemon page anytime soon. And my sarcastic examples above also hold true here. But I have made a notice on the talk page for Flag of Israel alerting others to my concerns. And hey, if this guy somehow does the exact same thing again, I know which administrators' noticeboard (section) to refer to to say "I told you so!" --BaseballDetective 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings from an odd Anon IP obsessed with the Academy Awards

please don't add vandalism warnings when i've made good-faith edits. it is uncivil and is a form of vandalism.

we don't need wikipedia littered with "acadademy award nominated" and "academy award winning" in intros. that's an advertisement for the academy awards which is against wiki's no advertising policy --71.112.7.212 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break anonymous IP posting troll. The Academy Award is a valid industry accolade and is perfectly valid and accepted terminology on Wiki and off of Wiki. By your logic, my using of the word Wiki in this comment response is advertising as well. You have no idea what you are talking about. And if you do, I would encourage you to actually get a login or actually sign your trollish nonsense so you can have a proper discussion on the Academy Award talk page. But I won't hold my breath for that ever happening. Just looking at your talk page (71.112.7.212) speaks volumes for what your edits get from people and how we all value them. Get a clue. --BaseballDetective 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, no personal attacks, baseball detective. They are uncivil. And don't insert advertising either... --71.112.7.212 03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember baseball detectives, no personal attacks. You can't call people OCD trolls on wiipedia. Can't see how what city my IP is located in is relevant to editing. --71.112.7.212 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism Warning

Warning to:

User talk:75.111.24.118 ...

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to ----. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BaseballDetective 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm thinking your work is secondary to your Bot (or copy/pasted) warnings as your warning to me quoted above was to "please... not add" info. The edit I did not-logged-in (sorry about not being logged in) which is the revision you reverted was to REMOVE info that I personally had placed there. My edit was neither vandalism, nor experimentation; it was after careful consideration for the subject of the biographical article who is living.

Baseball detective, you actually "added" the information in your revert! - Steve3849(talk) 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about the personal comment. - Steve3849(talk) 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.112.7.212

I think you are overdoing it a bit with the warning templates. That user has a valid concern, stonewalling his/her opinion through repeated accusations of vandalism is not really productive. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. But unfortunately the claim that these are valid edits makes no sense. It's quite extreme to say Academy Awards and the mention of them is 'advertising'. And this user refuses to engage in discussion about the topic on actors pages or on the proper Academy Award page. They would rather simply edit from an anon IP as a troll, ignore warnings from me and others and generally not add positively to the Wiki.

It was never my intention to let it get to simply posting warning upon warning, but how exactly do warnings work? Don't they alert admins somewhere on somepage something is up? If so, then why was it allowed to get to that state? If they don't work that way, are they simply a form of social shaming?

I'm genuinely interested because I want to be productive, but users like 71.112.7.212 are clearly being trolls and clearly should be blocked. How would I go about doing this in a way that's effective without festering for this long? --BaseballDetective 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an edit to add the following:

"Anon, it's very very clear that Oscar awards satisfy WP:N requirements and are not a violation of WP:SPAM."

--BaseballDetective 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings by themselves do nothing, the only thing that matters is how an editor responds to them. Some vandals stop after one warning, some don't even after twenty. Sometimes warnings even encourage vandalism (through validation, see WP:DENY). Other times the very insinuation of vandalism can bring out hostility in contributors who have a reasonable argument. Point is, the whole Academy Award thing is up for debate as a legitimate content dispute, even if that editor has little chance in successfully making his case. If you direct the contributor to a talk page to discuss their desired edits, you then offer a fair opportunity for debate. Sure, sometimes it turns out to be mere trolling, but it's much better to err on the side of good faith. Most people, even trolls, will react better if you treat them with respect and a sense of humility. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the issue was resolved by block. I just noticed your post on the community noticeboard, and I'd like to apologize for the tone of my initial comment - you clearly took the initiative to attempt to resolve this dispute aside from just warning the user. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As Alf would say, "No problem." You're smart, lucid, know how to type and can express yourself. Which is why I'll never get pissed at Wikipedians like you even if you get the facts slightly off. Best! --BaseballDetective 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for responding so quickly to the vandalism of my user page.--FreeKresge 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Thank you for your clarification on my User talk page concerning IP user vandalism. I feel safer now in the knowledge that I might just, for once, have been doing the right thing. All the best. Bobo. 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Transplanted

I've just transplanted the message you left on my talk page on that of User:71.112.7.212. Bobo. 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You just got there before me! Bobo. 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the talk page revert :) ... and for the massive comment on the IP's talk page.

Chrisch 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning removal

Hello! While it's a common error, it actually is allowable (though discouraged) to remove content, including warnings, from one's talk page, even if not archived, and users will not be blocked for doing so. Of course, the warnings do still "count" whether they are removed or not. If someone you report is engaged in talk blanking, just note that on the report. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sig to this users comments on practically all comments to help them out. But I think you've made a big mistake by wiping ALL warnings even prior to mine. The user is indeed a troll & this behavior has not changed. The same patterns will exist and persist and the user has never engaged in any discussion beyong the whine-fest he's made about the alerts against him. I have faith he/she will be banned/blocked within a few days. --BaseballDetective 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the user's behavior has been problematic, and will be keeping an eye, as presumably will you. If it comes time to make a report, just note that the user removed warnings. Nothing's ever erased from page history, no big deal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

I don't know whether you've seen it, but 71. has posted a new message Here. Bobo. 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

a wee wah wee way

awesome edit summary the_undertow ^talk 09:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Borat pic

Thanks. I was thinking it might be useful in the Borat! article if I knew exactly what event it was. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

where's all the controversy?

why hide all that info that used to be here, baseball? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

please don't make personal attacks on my talk page, baseball. they are uncivil. calling people trolls just isn't a nice thing to do. i guess you are right about you archive, anyone who wants to see it can the controversy that used to be here can click on your archive but i was just curious why you didn't leave it here. the page wasn't all that lengthy. well, to each his own. au revoir! 71.112.7.212 (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

How dare you go to other people's talk pages, spout paranoid nonsense and then have the gall to act offended when someone speaks back. I have not contributed to Wikipedia in over a week and in your case, I stopped posting and warning you since March 17th. Grow up and stop stalking others you pathetic troll. BaseballDetective 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at this...

Look here at who is crying out for help...lol.--David Shankbone 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut

Hi,

I saw your helpful edit at List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut. I think it's useful to have that part of the list there (about those who don't live in town but have been said to live in town) and I explained why on the talk page, but the anonymous user whose deletion you reverted is starting an edit war. I'd like to get a consensus on the matter. Would you please add your thoughts on the talk page? I'd appreciate any help you can give (whether or not you agree with me). Noroton 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that editor to the 3RR page. Sorry it didn't work out. I've taken another step, posting this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies:

• Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut#Why we have a section on people who did NOT live in Ridgefield an anonymous editor has been deleting a section listing two individuals (Flannery O'Connor and Robert Fitzgerald) and a fictional movie reviewer once made up by Sony publicity, saying the names should not be on the list because, well, they never lived in town. Others disagree, saying the section of the list clears up confusion. An edit war has resulted and posting here may help end it.

We'll see what happens. Again, thanks for your efforts. Noroton 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Please do not tell me how to organize my personal talk page. If I don't like a comment and do not feel that it brings anything to the table then I will delete it. —03:35, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

you cannot behave the way you do and blank out warnings and discussions as you do blindly. admins are watching and are noticing your behavior. BaseballDetective 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please link me directly to the rule which states I can not remove portions of my talk page. I am removing warnings that are either not made by an administrator or are unable to lead to a discussion as to the manner. You have mentioned time and time again that "admins are watching", that's fine with me, please let them do their job and refrain from further touching my page. —03:40, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

warnings can be left by anyone including non-admins. this is part of the wiki way of everyone policing each other, not just admins. and nobody would be touching your page if you did not behave like the disruptive troll you are. unblievable. BaseballDetective 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings can be left by anyone but that doesn't mean I must adhere to them or keep them on my page. An average citizen can issue you an arbitrary "citation" for an "infraction" which you have committed, it doesn't mean that I am not able to crumple up that piece of paper and throw it away. My actions are not that of a disruptive troll, I have shared my viewpoint as to the Ridgefield issue and have not seen an argument able to sway my opinion. Feel free to warn me as often as you'd like, just be advised that warnings and discussions that I don't care for will be removed. —03:47, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

but at some point your yelling, kicking and screaming will be noticed by others who then see your history and will take appropriate action. this is wikipedia, not-anonymous-harassing-troll-pedia. —BaseballDetective 03:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly point out to me where I have "harassed" other users? I am not threatening users, I am not vandalizing the pages of others... does asking for justification as to one's actions and maintaining a position concerning what I will and will not tolerate in terms of both random articles and my own personal talk page really constitute harassment? —03:55, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

Re: Your dispute with 69.118.129.76

BD, at this point I'd suggest you and the anon user open a case at WP:RFM. That may be the only way to resolve this. Caknuck 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the Ridgefield people list page. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask. Noroton 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caknuck, request WP:RFM. If you need help, feel free to contact me. --Random ^{Say it here!} 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last three users, in part because I can't wait to see how well compiled this "case" against me will be. —19:40, 21 May 2007 69.118.129.76

Please take a look and comment

Hi BD,

I've gotten into a discussion with #69, who's intransigent, and I'd like to get on record that we have a consensus to keep that section of the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut list. If, in fact, we have a consensus. I summarized my long argument at the bottom of the page and asked for comments. Would you please look over at least the summary (a few paragraphs) at the bottom of Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut and give your opinion (whether in support of keeping or not). Much appreciated, Noroton 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

After your last exasperated comment at Talk:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut, I hate to bother you, but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your edits there and I've filed a sockpuppetry complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets against User 69. The complaint is here if you want to see it. Again, thanks. Noroton 02:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben Karlin

This is Ben Karlin. You seem to really have an axe to grind with me. I'm not quite sure how your updates to my page are neutral or objective. They mainly just hurt my family's feelings and frankly, seem a bit picayune. Do we know each other? Have I wronged you? Perhaps there is a better, non-anonymous forum to work this out.71.246.109.171 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a casual Wiki editor who came across your edits in my normal rounds of cleaning up articles that interest me or I happen upon while contributing to Wikipdia on vandalism patrol. I have enjoyed your work on The Daily Show and while reading that page, came upon your page.

Despite your claims, the article as it stands is neutral and objective and has met the scrutiny of other Wiki editors as well. Nothing posted in this article is fabricated or unsubstantiated and compared to other articles I have cleaned up, it has some really solid and verifiable sources. Like it or not, all the good/bad aspects of your behavior are both presented in a neutral tone with ample verification from reliable outside sources including court records and in major media publications. Thus are part of the public record and simply cannot be ignored by anyone doing work on Wikipedia.

That said, I have read your history and interactions involved, it honestly seems that you are the the ultimate cause of all of this strife. Looking at your personal posting here, it’s very clear you have issues to deal with. So please do not complain to me or complain to any other Wiki editor. We simply add, edit and tweak content based on the facts presented. The blame for your behavior as a public figure and the documentation of that behavior in the media cannot be put on the shoulders of anyone else other than yourself. As someone whose career seems to be based on understanding the concept of freedom of the press and the ability of the public to air and discuss matters of public record, it’s a bit baffling to even have to explain this. Might I suggest some therapy so someone can explain to you the concept of not blaming the messenger and perhaps looking into yourself? --BaseballDetective (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a response. Thank you for your candor. Best of luck to you in the future, BaseballDetective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.109.171 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Text restoration

Hi, your restoration of the text in the article Jacqueline Rose was noticed by me, but per WP:BLP I again removed the uncited text which, to me, seemed like an attack on her personally and against her nationality. Sometimes IP contributions when they are removing bodies of text can be vandalism without edit summaries, but shouldn't be undone without examination. I Grave Rob_§talk♥^stalk§ 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Understood. --BaseballDetective (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)