User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2010/August

return of 90 217

Hi, see that IP is back warring rubbish content in again, tiresome. I will keep an eye on him as well. There is not much enthusiasm at ani for such reports and I mostly agree, the best is to give them enough rope and use policy and report for warring. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Seems to have died off again now - but I have a whole new set of articles on the watchlist :P I expect they will be back. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina letter

Hey, you wrote you'd help out with the translation. I think the letter should go like this, but you're free to alter it:

Dear Staff of minamazzini.com,

We are writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is currently lacking any images of Mina we can use in the articles about her. It is our policy to use only images that are licensed freely, i.e. free for anyone to copy, distribute and transmit the photos. The standard procedure for image owners is to release these under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. You can find the details in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . We kindly request for a donation in the form of releasing images of Mina under the license, that would support the critical commentary of her appearance and image in the Wikipedia article on Mina (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/Mina). The work would be attributed in the manner specified by you as the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that you endorse Wikimedia Foundation). Please do not hesitate to ask for further clarifications.

Jaan Pärn

Jimbo Wales

Wikimedia Foundation

--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, looks good to me - I will try and talk to my friend tonight; at the very least I am going on holiday with here next week so I will be able to get her to do it then :) Do you want to post this suggested text to the talk page for Jimbo to have a look over and see what he thinks (I also have some suggestions but that page might be a better place to collaborate on it)? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He wrote he was OK with it already. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental reversion

Thank you for restoring that - I was on my phone and my fat finger hit the rollback button by accident. GregJackP Boomer! 10:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I do it all the time :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly unsourced additions

Couldn't find any then? I trust you will now refrain from further accusations based on imaginary policy breaches. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I could go back through your past IP addresses and pull some out, but frankly have better things to do. Besides; my comment about unsourced additions referred to your use of words and text unsupported by the sources. I've explained this in detail a number of times. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

John Clark (actor/director)

Thanks for the advice, you are probably right. I think I may have become snow-blinded by John Clark's constant revisions to the article. Anyway, thanks again. Memphisto (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) Glad I could help! Honestly, I am not sure it matters either way, but I figured I would point it out. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The IMDB link I provided details the transmission date of What's Wrong with Humpty Dumpty? - it may have been pre-recorded not live, and there would have been rehearsals beforehand. So Clark and Redgrave met around February time. Memphisto (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, Memphisto. We met at the recording of the TV show in London, which was in November 1966. Permit me to know because I was there, rather than you, using your WP tools? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John Clark responds re. talk page edits

People get frustrated and say things in the heat of anger; however Memphisto removed the content fairly quickly, one assumes as he cooled off. That doesn't defend the behavior but there is no need to restore the comments - the diffs exist and if you want to report him to the relevant noticeboards then it is fine to just use them :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with you, Errant. Content on a talk page should be edited or removed at the peril of the remover - which you have also now become. I see that there have been further edits on this talk page. Are you an administrator? I don't see your name listed in this article. LIST OF ADMINISTRATORS. What was removed were my entries concerning the editing of the article. I believe the article is better served by not deleting content and/or sources. I am claiming exception to the WP cautions against autobiographical articles. You will note that they are not forbidden, just not advised. Again, I claim exception, and when I ask for page protection, it will be with that claim. I am copying this to your talk page. You are obviously an ally and protector of Memphisto's efforts to discredit me. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrators carry no greater bearing than any other user. They simply have tools to enact community consensus. You cannot add back material removed in good faith. I am claiming exception to the WP cautions against autobiographical articles; sorry, no dice. Or, rather, you can try to attain an exception but I doubt any community consensus will support it. However, if you wish to go down that road I am willing to point you in the right directions. Please refrain from making attacks against other editors --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

collapse various rants/attacks, no longer engaging with this user

Personal attacks Please refrain from personal attacks against both myself and User:Memphisto as you have done on Talk:John_Clark_(actor/director) and User_talk:Tmorton166. Examples of inappropriate conduct include the accusations of censorship and collusion you made and general attacks (e.g. comment about naivety, attacks on our motives). Please focus on discussing specific content and not the editors. In addition I ask you to check out my other contributions; as you can see I edit on an extensive array of topics, as such I hope you can see that John_Clark_(actor/director) is not part of any particular agenda I have to discredit you. I would ask you to retract your comments to that effect. We are all volunteers here; trying to create an accurate, verified, neutral encyclopaedia. Note I will also be warning Memphisto for the comment he left. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1. You avoid answering my question: Are you an administrator? 2. I ask you to check out my other contributions; as you can see I too edit on an extensive array of topics, as such I hope you can see that John_Clark_(actor/director) is part of the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits. I would ask you to retract your comments about me. We are all volunteers here; trying to create an accurate, verified, neutral and balanced encyclopaedia. 3. You are too clever in your use of WP tools for your own good. I do not believe that Memphisto edits in good faith. I sort of think that you do, but you back him up on all his edits giving a collaborative impression, and impression is what counts. Personal attack? That is a nice buzz-word, but what does it mean? To question a user's motives is fair game, and should not be deleted using that tool. You will notice that I have NEVER deleted anything on the talk page, even when it is detrimental to me. 4. I notice that many hi-handed changes and deletions are made by you and Memphisto without prior discussion on the talk page, and without adequate explanation in the history pages, as required by WP guidelines. 5. You keep making excuses for Memphisto. Why? Let him plead his own cause. 6. I ask you, again, to re-read WP:DR. 7. Enjoy your trip to Croatia. I hope you are taking Memphisto with you. That would be nice for both of you, and you can discuss me over a few drinks. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) is part of the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits - if your aims are to discredit me I am afraid I no longer wish to engage with you over any other issue than content disputes. To question a user's motives is fair game; no it is not. I ask you, again, to re-read WP:DR. 7; I have askec you numerous times to bring up specific issues regarding content on the talk page. Unless you bring them up it is hard to dispute them. I feel you are now being disruptive and I am afraid I can no longer engage with you over this. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Good. But you will feel frustrated. Why don't you and your friend Memphisto turn your talents elsewhere? Check out Cary Elwes (vanity?), Cindy Adams, Laura Schlessinger (encyclopedic?), Barry Morse (sources, vanity?), Mel Brooks (sources, encyclopedic?), Ronald Goldman (sources?), Jesse Jackson (encyclopedic?)... a random list, but you get the idea. You should edit and delete - you know how to do that, do it like you do with me. Instead of tagging them with requests for a source, which is normal procedure, just do your editing and deletes on them. But you won't. I think that's called discrimination JohnClarknew (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to references

Tom, I'm damned if I can figure out how to do this the required way using templates. Yeah, guess I'm dumb, but can you suggest a site where it explains it in a step by step format? I want to change the references on the page to conform. Thanks JohnClarknew (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Goals Club deletion

Looking at the history of Goals club (which was what the article was called for a while), I see that it has already been deleted once, if that's of interest. Deb (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, damn sorry I only just spotted that you got noticed about the prod, I forgot to untick the "notify" box (on the rationale you didn't appear to create the article). Anyway; thanks for the info :) I guess it was all just promotional junk that got the spam links removed at some point --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Reply

Thanks for that Tom. I agree some good content has come from the user, but there is only so much we can do to help people. You can really find the correct words sometimes and have a very good level of patience and civility which is very valuable to Wikipedia. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		For your patience and civility across wikipedia Monkeymanman (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Slidel

Hi

Thanks for your feedback on my first Wiki article. I'm planning some more.

I can't work out how to condense multiple references, maybe I'm doing something wrong.

Perhaps you can help. Sid

SlipperySid (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, welcome back. I noticed your absence, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I had a week in the sun, which was nice. :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao

That's ok, these things happen. I'm thinking of replacing all the "Manny' references to "Pacquiao" to see what will happen. Britmax (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, good luck on that one - the article needs a really big hammer brought down on it... I've been too tentative to try it though --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

you might need one of these....

ONLY "might?" Britmax (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche

Epeefleche was notified by Sumbuddi in this edit. CIreland (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha sorry. Slow coffee day :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slander by Association

Is it the case in England that there is such a thing as slander by association, as to which truth (or citation) is not a defense? Not under U.S. law. And, of course we know that the magazine itself connected the two and indicated that they are related. For you to say that they are unrelated doesn't match the magazine's view -- and we could always if you like point out that the magazine said it. I get leery about the differences between UK law and US law with our UK office, and I know that we as a wayward colony have gone off in a different direction in some areas, but happily US law applies to wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a little more complicated than that. The point is that the magazine is verging on Slander because the purpose of the paragraph is to associate the comment to the uncle and his actions; that is slander. I used the phrase slander by association (and there is ample legal precedent on Lexis if you dig around) simply to highlight that this was what we meant by slander. But, as I said, it is somewhat esoteric arguing it out one way or another - the implied connection is quite clearly against BLP policy. As an aside; in fact the magazine does not connect the two except by implication. It makes no comment that the uncle's actions are related to the company other than state the two facts together. To infer that this is notable information about the company seems undue. It might be reasonable content for the uncle's WP page (which is then linked). To put it another way; I am sure numerous facts exist about the Uncle - why is that one specifically notable to the company (apart from appearing in a source nearby a reference to it) over any other? Simple answer; the source is making lots of links to undermine all the people/companies in that article - with that in mind we should tread carefully in using material (under WP:RS guidelines) from it without due consideration. I have yet to see any cohesive argument for that fact being related to the company? (also - it may be worth raising all these points on the BLP/N or article talk rather than on my talk page - so others can comment) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., unless we have reason to believe something is untrue, we don't have a necessary element of slander if the item is either true or we point to a reasonable source as the source of the statement. It's part of the "truth is a defense" rubric. It seems to me that you think that the source is engaging in slander. I don't see that, for the reasons I've laid out. In much of the world, the relationship, for one thing, is a positive. Your POV makes it a negative -- subjectively, for you. But wp avoids the infiltration of subjectivity, which undermines the project, by looking to objective sources, such as RSs. I see you say "verging on", and divine "the purpose of the paragraph", but those are both something other than slander and other than wp policy. You also seem to stray into the domain of those who confuse POV -- which relates to editors -- with presumed POV of the RS. Editors have POVs -- they should not impact their editing. We keep this under control by making sure that they use RSs to support what they write. That is objective. We don't say, I think this journalist is a The Guardian is a liberal and I don't like his point of view so it is POV when he writes something and I will delete it. WP would crumble if we allowed editors to let their own POVs run roughshod in this manner over the project. You don't like the way that the article connects the two, but it mentions both together in the same paragpraph -- there is no getting around it. You substitute your view as to whether it is relevant or notable for theirs -- that's a slippery slope again of allowing an editor's subjective POV to control matters (and no doubt, there are editors who have precisely the opposite POV as you do) over and in lieu of the RS. Extending your approach, AfD discussions would go ... "Well, the RSs indicate the person is notable, but I -- Editor X -- don't buy it, and have a different view." That would be unworkable. IMHO, of course. I've been editing just long enough to be able to anticipate how disruptive it would be if subjective editors' views were to trump objective criteria. It would be a disaster. IMHO. BTW - the connection may be helpful to the company, in that it may lead to sources of funding, etc. I'm a bit surprised that you see this all as negative. I raised it here because I thought your comment on law, something I have a few decades of experience in, was perhaps not quite on target as to U.S. law. But I didn't want that over-long string to go off on yet another tangent, especially as I did not view the legal issue as important to its resolution. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty difficult to read but I think a) you don't understand slander and b) have not, perhaps, totally comprehended WP:RS. The source is questionable because it is quite open about "digging up the dirt" - per WP:RS we need to treat the material with care when using it. The impact on the company is irrelevant (positive or negative), the issue is whether it is notable to the company - that is the criteria we judge. In fact the information is not in the slightest bit relevant to the company (in the context of a description of it) and I can't see how you can argue the source asserts that it is (if it did that might be another matter). As pointed out on AN/I the aim of the source is to link the company, via an uncle to Hamas. Whether or not that is a positive or negative thing (From a personal perspective I would consider that a negative association which is irrelevant - I find it is good practice to suspend your personal feelings and thoughts here on WP). The incident in question is mentioned in passing and we really do not have enough context to reliably show it's notability to the company. Please do not add non-notable material to articles (and then argue that it is directly pulled from the RS) - it won't fly. Look, raise this on the talk page or BLP/N; I suspect you will get the same response but you never know. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Links removed from Pension

Hello, I noticed you removed a bunch of links from the Pension article but I don't really see why many/most of them were taken out. In particular, the ones removed in the "See also" list really should be there, but not only those IMO. Thanks Dhollm (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina letter

Hey, you promised to help out with the translation of the application for a free image of Mina (singer). How is that getting along?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn, sorry. Let me chase up my friend. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

hi

Thanks for your kind words and suggestions to correct myself :) Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulterior19802005 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ocean habitat topics

Many thanks for your suggestions and modifications to this template, which, I think, work really well. Would you mind removing the line between the image and the caption? Also, and this may just be my platform (Mac with Firefox), but this does not display the right hand border of the template. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, I'm glad you like it. Thanks for being open to a compromise :) As to the border issue... it displays ok for me here so it could just be an issue for your platform, have you got anything else to test it on? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to work on other platforms. Thanks Tom. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Ok, thanks. I just thought it was true but I didn't see the issues. Thanks for letting my know :) Látches ^{Lets talk!} 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for closing that. It appears that they're looking for anything that they can use against me at this point. The links that were posted just show that I reverted a few editors, but then reverted myself because I took a look and my reverts were bad, which is what a good reverter does. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I do think you need to maybe slow down a little or whatever (when you get the tools back) but there was no need for the discussion to drag on. BTW regarding getting the "block" reduced - I recommend using rollback manually for a week or so first before talking to DGG. He is a sensible guy and if you've shown a bit more caution with manual reverts I'm sure he will consider the length of the "block" --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

heh, thanks for that :) I'm way to tired to be participating now :( that's the third typo this evening. Bed time! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Do you have any good suggestions on how to start? I know you basically already told me, but, if it's not too much trouble, could you into more detail? Also, what's your time zone? Mine is PDT, and it's 2:58 P.M. for me. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

GMT so it's 11PM here - but I had a long day :) and I'll happily go into more detail if you want, no rush right? I'll rustle something up tomorrow if that's ok --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. Depending on how tired I'm feeling, I go to bed anywhere from around 10:30 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., and if I'm ill, around 9:00 P.M.. Last week on August 13th, I went to bed around 5:30 P.M., but that was because we had to get up around 2:00 A.M. the next morning to go somewhere. Anyway, pleasant dreams. =) - Donald Duck (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So where's your detailed explanation? =D - Donald Duck (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten. Just propping up some articles then I will write up something :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Donald Duck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Donald Duck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Donald Duck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 78...

Honestly speaking, to call his edits good faith is a rather WP:AGFish statement though I agree with your arguments in substance :). This troll has been stalking each and every of my edits for 3 weeks now [1], [2] with my own talk page history clogged up with bogus warnings from that crackpot and no sign of this wikistalking ever stopping (or any action taken against this).
At least there's nothing about good faith in case of this user. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know; it was just the Twinkle button I used :) don't read anything into it. I know it is frustrating but I advise staying as calm as possible, being ultra polite and follow policy exactly. This IP is obviously combative; I'd suggest ignoring them on your talk page and trying to open a content discussion on the talk pages. It's a touchy subject but you have made some accusations and some vague attacks on editors/IP's on some of the talk threads - I'd suggest focusing religiously on the content dispute and resisting making further comments for the time being. If you give the content dispute a real go for another day or so I'm guessing either the IP will get bored and disappear (happened to me a few times with a persistent football vandal) or you will be able to get admin action. Most of all keep calm - I think I have all the related articles on my watchlist so I will keep an eye out for you also --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather

Hello, thanks again for making the change to the introduction of the Manny Pacquiao article. I've been having a discussion on the talk page for Floyd Mayweather about changing the lead for that article as well. This version seems to be supported, but I'm afraid the page will get reverted once I make the edit.

Is there anyway you can help me keep an eye on it in-addition to the Pacquiao article?

Thanks! Courier00 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Heya, I commented on talk and watched the article. If you want to do the update I can keep an eye on it and help stop mass reversion etc :) (good work again). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

potentiality and actuality

I had another crack at your draft idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, Zombie433 is not wholly cooperative and open to discussion. The editor was blocked fairly recently for spamming the website dreadcentral.com. I've kept an eye on him since he returned, and he seems to limit himself to the occasional referencing of dreadcentral.com in a couple of articles listing horror films. I've seen past complaints on his talk page about his footballer editing, though, hence my interest in the current ANI discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Heya, yeh fair point - I know see that attempts have been made. Gah, editors like that are so frustrating, if they would only enter discussions these could be resolved fairly quickly :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

Pakistan is a nightmare for spam lists. India too although I've found Pakistan to be diabolically bad. In fact myself and User Rich Farmborough removed hundreds of lists from articles about nine months ago. The problem is not list articles. Its articles on towns and villages and small districts (tehsils and union councils) which few have ever heard of. As you can imagine ips who barely speak english visit them and implant their POV like "is a beautiful, famous village" and they;ll list ever tiny school in the district often with no capital letters and glorify the local taxi driver as being "well respected", things like that. I would be deeply grateful if you are willing to go through Category:Populated places in Pakistan by region and district and the divisions and remove any spam lists, typically they'll be schools, shopping centres, local businesses, local clans or "famous" people (who are unknown beyond the village) etc. I'm sure you get the picture. You;'ll find scores of articles which need peacock words removing. Maybe I've spoken too soon but if you have experience checking them you'll see how seirous the problem is. Not all articles are this bad but Pakistan first then India could certainly use a clean and despam. Personally I'd remove all unreferenced/poorly written english too. Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Actually yes I have come across some similar stuff like that with Afghanistan village articles... which is an interesting problem. I may look into that a little more and see if my code could work with such articles/lists to at least highlight the worst offenders :). Thanks for the reply --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Afghanistan and Bangladesh have "second degree" problems but most Afghan villages are lucky if they have any edits. The problem is become serious with Pakistan and India with high numbers of people getting internet access (still extremely low though by western standards) many of whom are unwaware of what is encyclopedic. The areas with a high population density but with few fluent english speakers monitring/or editing the articles are where you'll find wikipedias poorest articles. I am very well travelled on wikipedia and hands down the worst quality articles are on Pakistan and smallers Indian towns and villages and Bangladesh! Every once in a while you'll find inserted info that makes you chuckle and shake your head that somebody could think it notable. You'll also find a record number of articles contianing words "famous", "best", "beautiful". Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. First one I checked Dullah. Capital letter for names is prevalent for non notbale lists etc, "beautiful village" etc. Note not all have the problem but you'll find many which do. Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh.

This is what started it all for me when I was on AN/I. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

From my Talk page

In case you missed it: see my talk page ;-) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)ooops! DocOfSoc (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Thanks for the information, I have moved the text to the correct page. I'll know for future. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You should get sorted out quicker on that page, sometimes "routine" requests like that can hang around on AN/I for days :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to believe you. You leave messages at the top as the admins start from the bottom. Not to worry though, if they ignore the request or decline it, I and other users will have to clean up after the jokers that have nothing better to do with themselves. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for improving the LGBT parenting article and FAQ! As a long term contributor who developed the majority of article really appreciate it a lot! --Destinero (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW: "Religious belief is fine, but religions can be harmful". Very nice and truthful statement. --Destinero (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) If you need any more help with the article just yell. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ --Destinero (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Letter from David Appletree to one of his few supporters here on WIkipedia

(With regard to discussion happening here)

You're one of the few, honest, and objective people on my case right now. There's so much context to this which is being avoided and it seems FT2 is lying. It's annoying. I honestly came back with the best of intentions. I accepted mentorship offers from 3 different people. I was then getting steamrolled. Random WP editors were DEMANDING that I censor material on my website which is critical of WP. I said I would be open to making changes, if specific editors mentioned wrote me about any specific concerns, but that I could not just "bulk censor" my site. Anyway as I was defending myself on the ANI board, I was suddenly---out of nowhere---BLOCKED by Scott Mac, who I had called out on his inappropriate comment just a few hours earlier. I felt that his BLOCK was a punitive "revenge" measure for me calling him out. Then FT2 comes from nowhere, AFTER the block, and says I can get out of it if I agree to a highly restrictive mentoring program. However, again, I had already agreed to 3 other mentors and I was highly annoyed by the block!

Well, despite my honest and good intentions, I lost all hope.

I'm very sorry about my reaction, but between the steamrolling, unfair demands to censor material on my website, Scott's inappropriate remark, the punitive block that came from nowhere and the taunt that I could get myself out of it if I agreed to a highly restrictive mentoring program (despite the fact that I had already accepted 3 other offers to be mentored), I lost it.

Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for being objective and fair about the situation. I understand you're probably risking a lot by not going along with the mob. I wish more people had that type of courage.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHadHonestIntentions (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot removed stub template

Hi, I'm not sure whether you intended that Autoerrant should remove this stub template: [3] - Fayenatic (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a mistake. It is a stub but AWB removed the template automatically once an article is above a certain size - usually I remember to check but this one slipped by. Sorry, and thanks for fixing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)