User talk:PAVA11

This is the user talk page for Grsz11, where you can send messages and comments. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will reply to messages left here on here unless you request I reply on your talk page.
Also note, I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than three weeks will be sent to the archives.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAVA11.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks

Archives: 2008: Jan–Feb, March–April, May–Sept, Oct–Nov, Dec

Info

Thanks for the info. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK

To answer your question, anyone can review articles at DYK. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the rules before doing so though. You may also want to watch how seasoned reviewers respond to articles. Since you're new, don't be surprised if more seasoned reviewers shadow your comments to make sure you are being fair and/or not missing anything. Good luck and welcome to DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. In addition to the rules written at the top of the suggestions page, you should also read these User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules, which are also applied as stringently by DYK reviewers as the "written rules".Nrswanson (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Spook"

I was just wondering when it was discovered that LukeTheSpook was socking. Was it when Rlevse ran a checkuser or before that? This may sound like an odd question, but I'm a very curious person. Heh. Thanks! Enigma ^message 04:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer discovered Luke was using the same IP as and Sum44, who was blocked as a sock of PeaceOfSheet, I think. I'm not entirely certain, as I was out undoing all of Luke's edits. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there was some suspicions before the checkuser was run; the checkuser only confirmed the suspicions. The bigger problem is that he has admitted that he used his second accounts disruptively, including creating one just for the sole purpose of creating extra work for the admins. He is also unrepentant about that action, so I see no reason why he needs to be unblocked at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Good job with the recent conflict about President Obama on AN/I. I am an Obama supporter, but even if it were McCain, or especially a different, upstart, president that I didn't agree with, issues like that cannot be ignored. Those users do not seem to know what they are talking about, or they are biased. This really isn't a place to say if edits like that are credible or not, because you never know, an admin might step in and debunk a threat like that, but say on December 21st we hear that some terrible thing has happened. You just don't know when the next "not credible" threat will happen, so let's just try to prevent it from happening in the first place. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

I hadn't, thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: That page you asked me about

Sorry, no... The deleted page contained nothing that would be appropriate even for your userspace. It was pure trash, and if you think a valid article could possibly be created under that title, it would be best to create one from scratch, because there really is nothing there worth preserving. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was basically an attack on Leary using all the "He ripped off Bill Hicks" stuff, but laced with profanities. There was really nothing at all worth preserving there. Go ahead and create the article again, if you like, with sources and references and neutral language and that will be fine. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama cabinet

The box I created for Cabinet members was much more organized than the already existent one. I'm sorry but the other one is such a mess! All names are in random order. Also, I stated my source about Napolitano and Pritzker (CNN). Please stop editing my contributions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthefuture (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

edit removed from history

Hi. I just noticed your request to have an edit removed from your talk page history. If you could please let me know where you've seen this done previously I'm sure this should help your case. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scottsdale

WP:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links: "Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic" (emph added} and further on the guideline "An article may be overlinked if ... Low added-value items are linked". Linking to a disambig page is clearly a low value add link, in fact it adds nothing to the reader other than adding confusion as to which Scottsdale was intended. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me,

Or are you also getting a feeling that this user has been here before? His edits, to others seem to be a bit pointy. Yes, he has reverted vandalism, but the way he's dealt with other users.. as seen before, past sockpuppets have tried to make a point by creating an account that makes constructive edits, because they knew it would be blocked because it was a sockpuppet.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. The question is, who? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We may never know, if he doesn't straighten up and quit issuing ultimatums. Dayewalker (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wise_dude321

Heya, you reverted some vandalism on the above page, but then you left a vandalism warning on the same user-talk page rather than the vandal's! Just letting you know, in case I missed something - the user in question was understandably confused. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Allegheny West (Pittsburgh) Fred Shero Lyle Odelein Jordan Leopold Lincoln Place (Pittsburgh) John Cullen Adrian Vandenberg Hazelwood (Pittsburgh) Mike Leclerc Rudy Sarzo Dick Tärnström Marcus Nilson Shawn Horcoff California-Kirkbride (Pittsburgh) Keith Levene Interstate 376 Knoxville (Pittsburgh) Bobby Ryan Blaine Stoughton

Cleanup Drew Brees Pittsburgh Left Frederick A. Hetzel Merge Keystone (architecture) Atlantic Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Locations Driving under the influence Add Sources Fort Pitt Tunnel Regent Square (Pittsburgh) Baldwin High School (Baldwin, Pennsylvania) Wikify East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania Fast Patrol Craft Expand Millersville University of Pennsylvania California University of Pennsylvania Robert Morris University

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 U.S. presidential election

Regarding adding "categories" to International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008, I invite you to participate in a discussion on the talk page rather than blindly reverting. There is no consensus for your version and you have offered no legitimate argument against the edit I made. Grsz¹¹ 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the talkpage where I long ago replied to you. Your version doesn't exactly have consensus support either. I ask you to please stop mindlessly reverting to a worse version. --Tocino 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, you never responded to me. My version makes no determination as to what is a state and what some think is not one, so you're wrong in saying that it would call things states that aren't. Grsz¹¹ 02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing unrecognized disputed territories side-by-side with sovereign nations tricks the reader into thinking that they are fully recognized states, when in reality they are not. --Tocino 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It in no way "tricks the reader" if the article is simply organized by continent. What's POV in the article is taking one side and saying this country is disputed when others say it's a state. I know you have a personal opinion in this that makes it hard to see it any other way. Grsz¹¹ 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even those who recognize those disputed territories as states would acknowledge that they aren't fully accepted and that their status is disputed. --Tocino 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and my edit doesn't say they are states - you are wrongly attributing that to me. Grsz¹¹ 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But as I said earlier just listing disputed territories amongst nations, without a disclaimer, leaves the impression that those disputed territories are fully accepted nations along with the others. --Tocino 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes and brick wall headbanging rituals

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the warnings. I'll try and be more careful next time.

According to WP guidelines, my user page was "utterly innocent." Whoever chose to see it as a personal attack, supposedly committed "the Great sin of Synth" - I was listing random combination of letters and words next to a picture of a douche. On an "unrelated" note, I'm tired of being pushed around by editors who seem to own Wikipedia and challenge every contribution possible using WP guidelines as an excuse. Let me quote an excerpt from a conversation between Alastairward and another user who (thank God!) backed me up on a certain citation:

Regents Park: [...] worry about something else. Plenty of other stuff yet to be done on wikipedia.
Alastairward: I come from Northern Ireland, silly disputes are... a cultural reference for me ;)

There seems to be a giant logical fallacy in the Wikipedia rule set: while editors that add material bear the "burden of proof," challenging seems much easier. Anyone could challenge anything with the most ridiculous "reason" and by that, shift the weight back to the editor that's been challenged. If you'll carefully examine Alastairward's behavior (without being blinded by the word "added" that shines so brightly in so many edit summaries), he challenges anything he can, thus forcing editors into long and exhausting threads of extensive proof. As far as I'm concerned, such users are nothing short of trolls, asserting their dominance on Wikipedia and making other editors (such as myself) feel like "they owe them an explanation as for every edit."

To further illustrate my point (and to end at least one "silly dispute"), please read this and tell me it's not straight our playing dumb on Alastairward's end. I'm urging you to do so because I really feel that an admin intervention is a must at this point. Thank you very much in advance - I await your reply. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't play stupid. They were usernames of editors you had disagreements with. Grsz¹¹ 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the other issues? I already apologized for the alleged personal attack and promised to never repeat such actions. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please respond, I'm only trying to contribute to WP in a civil manner rather than engaging in pointless arguments over someone else's view of my cited references. Thank you in advance for your understanding and help. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy vios

Since I know you are a penguins fan you might be better to be the one to look at Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr.. -Djsasso (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look. Grsz¹¹ 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Likewise, the other person involved is in the edit war, it takes two. So I don't get why you single me out?--Levineps (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The College football WikiProject Newsletter Issue XIII - December 2008
Project news Two new college football featured article candidates have been proposed. Jackie Robinson and Bob Chappuis need comments, criticism and support to be named featured articles. One new college football good article has been proposed. 1996 Orange Bowl needs to be reviewed for Good Article quality. A series of discussions about changing the notability requirements under WP:ATHLETE is underway, and your help and comments are requested. Conference championship games are upon us. Don't forget to update 2008 SEC Championship Game, 2008 MAC Championship Game, and 2008 Big 12 Championship Game, as well as the main articles for each championship game. The bowl season is here! When your team accepts a bowl bid, consider updating the bowl game page with your team's participation. Heading out to a game? Be sure to carry a camera and get pictures of players, teams, stadiums, and all the action and pageantry of college football. An excellent guide to taking pictures for WP:CFB can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Images. Even if you don't think a photo can be immediately used for an article, try uploading it to Wikimedia Commons so future article authors can use it. The College Football Portal needs to be updated with featured articles and pictures. Do you have a great picture that illustrates the best of college football? Consider adding it to the featured image queue on the portal.	From JKBrooks85 Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Wikipedia, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page. I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Wikipedia entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game. Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article.
New high-rank articles Jackie Robinson - Promoted to Good Article on October 31.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Climate

Hey I am currently defending the article again against an editor who despite being invited to join the talk page discussion multiple times, continues to change the section and Koppen classification on the basis of a single source[1] which looks to be borderline reliable. I have explained on my own talk, their talk and via edit summaries that they need to discuss. At this point I am treating any continuing editing without a new consensus or even any engagement of other editors as an act of bad faith. I am well aware that this may get to the point of 3RR as it did yesterday and I would appreciate if you could have a look at what's been going on, confirm that I am not being out of line and lend support should it be necessary. thanks. Mfield (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor has now posted to article talk. Hopefully they will wait for discussion and answers before changing anything now. Mfield (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk : EagleScout18

FYI, He's removed what you've said, again. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw, I'm not bothering with it anymore. If he wants to whine and cry like that, let him. He's indef blocked and never coming back, so whatever. Grsz¹¹ 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

U go gurl !!! --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a week. I doubt he'll come back by them. To protect only him from editing, I would have to revise the block. He hasn't done enough to deserve an indefinite block without access to the talk page and I sure as hell don't want an expiring one week block on him. I'm still holding out some hope that he's actually going to reform. He seems to have been fine except for Obama-related articles. I'll still going to defer to User:Ryulong if I see him again and I doubt Ryulong is as open-minded as I am. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)