User talk:Colonel Warden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:11, 20 May 2009

Abstract nonsense

Thanks for your comment. I think I did more than most people participating in this discussion to improve the actual article. Some sources were mentioned at the deletion page discussion, please try to include them at abstract nonsense when you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the AFD discussion but have added a generalised source search to the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARS

Template:ARS/Tagged

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the Tunnel running article was not really my doing - FT2 did a lot more. The Rabbit of Caerbannog was a much longer and harder struggle. Anyway, it's a nice idea and I'll look for opportunities to nominate others. Uncle G, for example, has just rescued Stain removal. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it, don't be bashful :) Ikip (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan's How

Just so you are aware, I have warned the user "Pcap" regarding his/her response to you re: the books you cited on the AFD for Aslan's How. which I felt was a WP:FAITH violation. 23skidoo (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the matter. I shall respond in more detail at the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole

i see ya tried ta get tha page of ASSHOLE delered there! no luck ! ha ha ya fuckin chancer! ya jumped the fence there baby! 86.43.213.54 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are well informed as I had quite forgotten and that article's talk page did not properly link to the discussion. I have corrected this and will also add to the article itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

May I ask about the rationale behind this edit? JSR (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to have consensus for a large removal and so should discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than repeating your edit. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was mostly unsourced stuff and replacing of sourced material with some of the best citations available. I worked hard on the draft; Read it when you find time and compare it with this version. Please let me know what you think on your talk page afterward. Good day JSR (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the ledes when comparing both versions and your version seemed too sparse for such a major topic. In any case, you need to prepare the ground for such a major update by discussion on the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said, Will try and improve later. Also will try and reach consensus. Thanks. JSR (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beating up

The article has been reduced to a disambig page, please renew your comments BMW(drive) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat names

Hello! I was able to source an article under discussion if you could perhaps reconsider there? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some good work has been done and so I have amended my opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! :) Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Guppy

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Roll the dice.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? H.G. 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidruben Rfc

May I ask for a favor to certify at [1] that you tried to resolve dispute with DavidRuben? Please sign at Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Of course please feel free to comment or support. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed as requested. I'm not sure there's more to say since the issue seems clear but I'll keep watching the related threads. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depression

At depression you have stated that you oppose its nomination. I do not know if you have taken part in any other FA candidacy; but since the problems you say can be fixed I thought that you migth not know that you can 'comment and wait some time to see if the problems are fixed; and only then give your oppose or support vote It would also be of much use if you specifically said which sections or sentences had the problems you see.With this I do not want in any case to change your vote but only working on good faith presumption to give you an option that I am not sure if you knew. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no previous experience of this process but made some comments in some other portion of the process earlier. One of those - concerning the map - does not seem to have been addressed. I don't have much time for this but, generally, my impression is that the article still has significant work to be done and so is not ready for the FA stamp. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, best regards

Reading up on the process at WP:FAC#Supporting and opposing, I gather that substantive objections are usually accompanied by Oppose or Object and that they are stricken out as and when they are satisfied. I'll flesh out my list of specifics when time permits but note that the following editor has now touched on several points which I had in mind and I find his views to be generally in accordance with mine. I'm still not quite sure why he chooses to summarise his points as Comment rather than Object but suppose that the difference is mainly a nicety. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you mean with the following editor? Regarding oppose/comment: comment is far more common right now, and specially when actions are not too difficult to follow; since it transmits the sense that you have not decided your vote yet and that it depends on actions taken. That list would be most welcomed; so as to ease improvement. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add that Casliber has made some efforts to reduce jargon, and if you give specific point where it appears I am sure he will try to improve it even more.--Garrondo (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Major depressive disorder#Skagedal.27s comments. Like him, I was hoping to avoid being sucked into a detailed editing back-and-forth. I had supposed that the process was at a higher level since such detailed and intensive editing work seems to belong on the talk page for the article. But many hands make light work, so I'll keep an eye on developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditchkins

I was listening to this year's Dwight H. Terry Lectureship from Yale University (Terry Eagleton's]) and I kept hearing this name what I thought, to me, was a new one. It turns out its a hybrid of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A google search turns up eight (good?) hits: Ditchkins. What would be your view on an article on Ditchkins? --Firefly322 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources indicate that only Eagleton uses this and so it might be worth a mention in our article about him. I doubt that there's enough material for a separate article - just a redirect would do. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. thanks.--Firefly322 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, Yale professor (Dennis Turner did so) also uses the term. Does that make it notable enough perhaps? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tolerant of any good faith article but the chances of such an article surviving AFD seem small currently. I suggest keeping your eyes open for more references and coming back when you see a good source to base the article upon. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonette reporting for duty

I want to join the ranks of people who care about content creation and would rather take 30 seconds to do a google search and 5 minutes to add a ref and text, than drop a turd-like textbox (on articles/content that the fookers don't even know/care about.) I might give the dragon club a bad name as I tend to act up a bit, especially with Tanqueray in my belly. TCO (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your user page. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin streets

Hi - you wrote: FYI, I have proposed deletion of this redirect...

Heh. Good luck. last time this redirect was proposed for deletion it was kept - even though I (as writer of the essay) said I had no objection to its deletion!. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Road? DGG (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your multi-pronged assault on my commonsense policy. --Balloholic (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of women

Thank you for pointing out the improvements in the article. I would like you to know, though, that I never thought it was a weak article: I thought it was a bad article, worthy of deletion. I do understand the WP policy, and I see an editor's job in AfD discussions, if the article in question has problems, as having to weigh whether something is a weak article that needs improvement or a bad article (for a variety of reasons, of course) that needs to be deleted. You see, I don't think that a good title/topic is enough, and some contributors, and I sense this in this particular article, churn out less-than-average articles leaving it to other editors to clean it up. You have rewritten significant chunks of the article, and I applaud you for doing so--you have probably saved it. I do think the topic is worthwhile, but I also think it should have stayed in the sandbox a bit longer. If all contributors paid as much attention as you do, our AfD discussions would be a lot shorter. Thanks again, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary A. Kowalski

This is an attack on a good faith editor and his actions. Please consider retracting the statement. Per previous warnings about your behavior, you should tread carefully. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my comment was to advise User:Firefly322 that he need not worry about making a comment since the AFD of his article was unlikely to be successful. My prediction proved correct since the nominator soon withdrew his nomination. I commend User:Bongomatic for his forbearance. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least three of us read it differently. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guacamole

I have undone one of your recent edits to guacamole per WP:crystal:

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen."

Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no OR since the material was well-sourced but I agree that we should avoid speculative content and will rewrite to address this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek consensus at talk:pea and talk:guacamole before continuing to re-insert material into Guacamole. Your unilateral editing and ignoring talk pages is not constructive at all. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Interposting) I've reviewed the Hell edit history. 2 reverts per WP:3RR is not an edit war. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When using the undo function it is both courteous and desirable to leave enhanced edit summaries as to why you are undoing a particluar edit, unless it is simple vandalism. I'd urge you to do this in the future rather than blindly revert, as the above warning is indicative of what may occur without such information. Pedro : Chat 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Interposting) There was no edit war. Going along with this so called "warning", which is actually either a mistake or a dishonest comment, does no favor for the wikipedia project. I would advise Pedro to disengage from such moral hazards in the future. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not to be used to engage in discussion per Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes as this is the function of talk pages. Please see Talk:Hell#Order_of_religions for the corresponding discussion which I started upon the editing matter there. As for the redundant warning above, this appears to be a reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Computers which would be a breach of WP:POINT, WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, edit summaries are not for discussion. They are to summarise the edit. When reverting in a content dispute simply using undo with no explanation at all other than the default can be counter productive. The point that Firefly appears to be missing is that I agree the above warning was incorrect, however if you had used a more detailed description in your reverts then it is more likely that it would not have been put here in the first place. Pedro : Chat 08:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, there may be many points that I am missing here. All the same, per Wikipedia:Civility#Apologizing you should be offering Colonel Warden an apology instead you continue to engaged in a dialogue that Colonel Warden has identified as WP:HARASSment. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find, Firefly, that Colonel Warden made the harrasment reference to Toddst1. I'm so pleased you acknowledge there are points you are missing. You are correct in this. I have done nothing but point out why the template may have been added, and that I believe it was added in error. Pedro : Chat 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that the original warning is very suspicious indeed and not justified, that it's best to use explanatory edit summaries at all times, that editors are free to decide it's too much hassle, and that it's not very polite to get into a fight over a misunderstanding on another editor's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, and apologies to Colonel Warden for carrying this out on his talk. Pedro : Chat 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adler's comment was possibly acceptable until "not very polite to get into a fight over a misunderstanding on another editor's talk page," where upon the commentary becomes errant nonsense sort of value judgement that all too common. Pedro's comment engages in another moral hazard. Sigh. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism

Prominent_inclusionists

RE: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_17#Prominent_inclusionists?

Many thanks for your wonderful recommendations of "models of intelligent and discriminating inclusionism". Introducing me to DGG was a god send. He is really incredible. But I must say, after further study of the notability guidelines and the condescending response I got on this post, calling the other recommendation an inclusionist, is like calling Jesus Christ a Buddhist.

Thanks again and happy new year. travb (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for inclusionists who were influential on policy and Uncle G fits that description well IMO. Of course, he is not an extreme inclusionist - hence my use of the word discriminating. But if you observe his contributions to this recent AFD, for example, they compare well with the rest. Another editor who may fit your requirements is User:David Gerard. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the other name, you are truly a wealth on information--best wishes! travb (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being outnumbered

Sometimes it seems like you, Pixel, and A Nobody are the only ones out there trying to actively support the inclusionist viewpoint, while there are maybe a dozen deletionist or exclusionist-leaning editors, and I have to applaud you for that! I've seen you all mocked for sharing your viewpoints, and I know I don't have the heart to take that over and over, so I have stayed out of the policy talk pages. Like I said in my statement, I feel this has a lot to do with the frustration that Pixelface and others likely feel. Like me, I think most supporters of fiction have things to do so we prefer to be out there actually editing the articles. Many deletionists and exclusionists don't really have much to work on except deletions, so that frees up a lot of time to work on thing like policies. That's just the way it is, unfortunately; I'm sure you might feel like you're in the extreme minority viewpoint sometimes, but I doubt that would hold up to be true if all of WP's regular editors were to be polled. I'm sure that most deletionists are vocal and active, while many inclusionists may be neither. I wish there were a better way that we could all work with the moderates (I think I've seen Randomran for example say he would like to side with inclusionists more than deletionists, if only there were more compelling arguments on how to accomplish that). One thing to do would be to strengthen the first two prongs on the three-prong WP:FICT test, under which you can see certain editors really bristling that they are even present. For a long time, prong #3 was seen as the only test for fiction (and thus, not really any different than the GNG), and by some editors it's the only one worth examining, but if the first two can be better fleshed out and strengthened, we will make some serious headway with the moderates. Well hey, good luck! BOZ (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. These troubles are just growing pains, I suppose, and will pass. In the meantime, we might take courage from characters such as Galahad:

My good blade carves the casques of men,

My tough lance thrusteth sure,

My strength is as the strength of ten,

Because my heart is pure.

And, as a practical matter, the key to success is mastery of the search for our Grail: good sources. If you should ever need a hand in this, feel free to ask. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything we can do for this one? BOZ (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best search keywords in that case seem to be the names of the places. I looked at a couple. The first, Trans-Carpathia, is actually a real place while the second, Trucial Abysmia only seems to show up on fan sites. Anyway, look at the article's talk page where you can see how to add links to more places. Focus upon the news and books links which is where you will find the best sources. It doesn't look too promising currently but it is often quite surprising what turns up when you really look. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the kind words as well and Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) BOZ (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got anything for Confederation of Planes and Planets? BOZ (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unsolicited advice

"Your words are polite...but your actions are obscene. Every word in every valid article you've destroyed should be converted to profanity and screamed in your face." --The Charms of Wikipedia March 20, 2008 Nicholson Baker New York Review of Books.

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Independent_sources You wrote:

"I'm not sure that there are all that many deletionists. It's just that they are obviously concentrated at hotspots like AFD and this policy discussion...Talk of consensus when such masses of editors have little to no representation here is absurd. The more puzzling thing is why the inclusionists are not better organised. I suppose that the best of them are too busy at places like DYK and GA/FA review, on top of the hard work of actually writing articles. And I suspect that most inclusionists have a sunny disposition which makes them disinclined to be embroiled in endless conflict. So, what we're dealing with here is the power of the dark side, you see..."

I agree 110% with your comments, but I notice that some editors criticized you. Remember what inclusionist editor User:DGG said: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience."

Passive aggressiveness is the key to winning concessions here on wikipedia. i.e. if you step in shit, don't call it shit. Don't call editors "deletionists" call them "editors who delete". It is verbal silliness but it is sadly necessary.

I have written a lot on passive aggressiveness, see for example: A Machiavelli view on Wikipedia and Being passive aggressive is the key to winning edit wars. Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Statement_by_InkSplotch for the absolute best passive aggressive example. Here is an editor calling arbitration on someone else, and his words are so flowery, repentant, humble, and uniting. Reading this soothing *&^% you soon forget that this editor is aggressively calling for another editors head.

I suggest refactoring out the "dark side" comment. Apologize profusely. They are only words, you don't even have to mean them.

I am heartened by your valiant fight on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). You are 100% correct the deletion editors gravitate towards these policy pages. That is why I am letting you and others argue this page, but I will immediately start an Request for Comment when the page is changed from a proposed policy to a policy.

I have started to document how most policy is made: User:Inclusionist/Sasauge, which you are welcome to quote and expand. Some policy is made by one editor only. If no one catches the edit, it become policy, imposed on all of wikipedian editors. travb (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

Your thoughts on current (modified) article would be appreciated. Thanks Kris (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look but I don't know enough of these languages or phonetics to be able to make much of it. The AFD won't close for 5 days or so so I'll take another look before then and withdraw if it seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

You seem to have walked into the middle of our little edit dispute over at inflation, so I thought I should give you a heads up about what's going on.

Inflation is watched over by several Econ wikiproject members. Many of us have PhDs in economics and are in academia. We're trying to improve the econ articles so that they are at least undergrad text book quality, but you'ld be surprised how many people we have to fight over basic facts about economics.

Pennyseven showed up about a week ago, and has editing the Inflation page intensively and exclusively. He's been making some strange additions that all work back to a particular POV - that accounting values need to be corrected for inflation otherwise BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This POV has been pushed before, I could point you to some conversations on my talk page, and some earlier disputes on the Inflation page, but here's something from another econ wikiproject member on the inflation talk page that sums up our reservations.

I'll be upfront on this: I believe Pennyseven is yet another sockpuppet of Nicolaas Smith, who is indefinitely blocked and has a long record of attacks and disruptive editing. (AKA Kjkkjjk or whatever, X-1111, Pacluc, etc ad nauseum). The obsession is to push this point, and his (applied for patent) RealValueAccounting and text (i.e. conflict of interest).

Radeksz ‎has been working with the wikiproject for some time. He's extremely knowledgeable and is a good editor that does good work. He usually engages on the talk page before making changes. Its just that we're getting tired constantly fighting POV pushers, and so we get a bit brusque when another one shows up.

lk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting nominal values to allow for inflation is standard practise in many fields and it seems appropriate that this article should say something about this. No doubt the devil is in the details and I shall study them more closely. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PennySeven showed up about 10 days ago, and has been impolite to quite a few editors. We gave him leeway cause we didn't want to bite the newbie. But a pattern has emerged. Pennyseven is a WP:SPA that edits only the Inflation article, and consistently pushes only one point, that inflation degrades accounting values and must be corrected. This point has been pushed by a banned user before. The trouble with his edits is not that it's not true, it's that he doesn't source it to reliable sources that directly support his claim, and also that he wishes to put undue weight on it. There was discussion earlier among several editors, and all agreed that it Pennyseven's version placed undue weight. He reverts to it anyway. Check out the page history and talk history for yourself. You're on the wrong side here. lk (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the material in question is similar to that found in Inflation accounting then I consider it deserves significant coverage in the main Inflation article as finance, business and accounting are not fringe matters. If we simply require better sources for this then I may be able to help.Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my satisfaction I found many sources on the net.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. It was decisive.PennySeven (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard accounting does not have a CPI adjust. Of course CPI does occur and it is a significant aspect in the cost of money. But an article on standard accounting, should be on standard accounting. TCO (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bowtie wearers

Collapsed for courtesy

This is amounts to a legal threat. I've blocked you pending retraction. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

My comment in the email was meant to be a friendly warning to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry who perhaps did not appreciate the risk of advertising his employer so publically. I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment. The general purpose of my email was to encourage User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry to withdraw his AFD nomination in his own interest since it seemed that he was getting too carried away in a lost cause. As he is a servant in my country's armed services, I wish him well and wished to spare him further embarassment. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, it doesn't. Saying "Be careful, because there are other people who might go a bit overboard and choose to report you" is not a threat, just a friendly warning of what is likely to happen, right or wrong. A threat would be "Keep doing this and I will report you!".

See the difference? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underhanded spans this gap: "To spare you the embarassment of being reported to MoD, which has the wherewithall to chavel your life, please stop arguing with me. Thanks and all the best, with my everlasting fealty to Her Majesty's armed forces, of which you are a part, I need not remind. Now shut up and sit down, sir." Give me a break. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, you do not have the nuances to distinguish that the good Col was attempting to chill Cml,ItC through his military background - you don't even seem to appreciate the irony of someone whose signature proclaims themselves a Colonel (and if they are or were in the military, they had better have had that rank if they do not wish to be found that they are impersonating an officer) chastising another editor for publicising that they are a naval officer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I believe the nickname is a reference to Churchill. However, attempting to alter the behaviour of another user by implied threats (or rather explicit in this case) is clearly blockable and for good reason. Verbal chat 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my nom de plume is a homage to Winston Churchill, who used this alias himself.

I should perhaps add that, so far as I recall, there is no history of any trouble between User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and myself and that the matter of the bowtie article seems a fairly light-hearted matter which would not be the cause of a vendetta. With this context, I had supposed that my email would be accepted as well-intentioned per WP:AGF. Furthermore, extraordinary and underhand measures seem quite implausible in this case since the long discussion which we already had at the AFD indicated that the article would be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CW is right, there is no history between us. However, we haven't, from what I recall, had a long discussion, and the article doesn't look like it's going either way at the moment. If anything, merge is looking on the cards. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy me not knowing an alias of some old Tory... Nevertheless, Cml,ItC has never either made a secret of his professional following or used it as some sort of spurious authority. He has, though, been an effective administrator. I see no benefit that may have accrued in commenting to Cml,ItC in such a manner when co-incidentally opposing his opinion at an AfD - it is at the very best extremely poor timing, and resulted in Cml,ItC requesting further opinion. It may be to the best if the sentiments expressed in that email were withdrawn thus allowing all parties to participate in the ongoing AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Col, you could spare us a lot of wikidrama if you came out and said something to the effect of "It was not my intent to threaten CMLITC, and if it was interpreted that way, I fully retract it. I have no intent to report CMLITC to anyone." which is what I suspect you mean. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above where I say "I intend no such malicious action against him myself and so am happy to retract any such meaning which might have been construed from my comment." which was intended to have a similar meaning to your version. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. I strongly recommend to keep this person blocked, indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please say more about why. Frankly, I've observed issues with this editor, ~~but would rather see behavior changed to be more in the spirit of cooperation and civility rather than stopped completely.~~ Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is still not clear, I retract any and all parts of the email which User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry took to be threatening or otherwise improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, so rather than "come to think of of, it was probably a poor-planned statement, even if meant in jest (which it really wasn't)", it's "oh crap, I'm in trouble, I'd better pretend to retract it"?? -t BMW c- 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we AGF and accept CW's retraction and put this incident behind us. It has no doubt been a learning experience for him. There is no need for piling on or more wikidrama -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my comments advocating unblocking per Fut's reasoning on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consolidate this discussion to ANI for all except CW? Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think generally that for Legal Threat blocks to be lifted, the person making the threat has to retract it (at least), admit that this was wrong and not something to be repeated. I'm not sur ewe have all these things yet. As to FutPerf and Todds comments, those should be discussed on AN/I (as they have done). Verbal chat 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any reasonable person could interpret this as a "threat" of any sort. There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself.

When I was young, my friends used to enjoy TPing the houses of people they didn't like. I would sometimes remind them that if they went too far and got caught then someone might report them to the police. I certainly wouldn't have done it myself, and so it certainly wasn't a threat. I see Colonel Warden's comments in the same light.

Certainly, if we're interested in keeping things from blowing up that would seem to be the reasonable way to look at this. Whether or not Colonel Warden's remarks were ill-advised, I don't know--frankly, people are way too quick to look for excuses to burn someone at the stake on this site, regardless of whether or not there are more likely--and certainly less drama-prone--explanations for what happened. Still, I'm sure CW has learned that, though he has acted in good faith and was most certainly not making any sort of a threat, people are going to look to interpret his words and actions as though they are anything but, and will keep that in mind in the future. So there's no need for a block here.

It just seems to me like someone jumping to convenient conclusions because she's way too eager to flex her muscle. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the AN/I thread for the reasons why this is a legal threat. "There's a huge difference between a polite warning about what OTHERS might choose to do, and a threat to do it oneself." - it's clearly a threat here. I don't think your analogy works though, as you weren't trying to coerce your friends into supporting your actions that they disagreed with. Your possible breach of WP:NPA/WP:AGF against Gwen should also be reconsidered. Verbal chat 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through it already. I didn't find any actual argument that it was a legal threat but merely a series of broken-record assertions. If I've missed something, please highlight it for me. As for AGF, check your e-mail. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, reporting me to the MoD for this could lead to me appearing in a summary trial under Naval Law under the aforementioned "conduct unbecoming a member of the forces". The crux of the issue is, I think whether CW knew this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the issue at all. I think everybody knows that--if not the specifics, at least the general gist that this is, in the military, a legal matter. The issue, as I see it, is simply whether he was actually threatening to report you himself, or merely trying to do you a favor by giving you a friendly reminder of what others might do if they were so inclined. Everything I've seen indicates it's the latter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just semantics, though. If you opened your front door to a stranger who said "Nice house ... be a shame if someone burnt it down one day, wouldn't it?", I think you'd assume that was a threat, even though he didn't say he'd be holding the matches. The real question is whether CW actually meant it to read as a threat. Black Kite 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To pick up on that analogy from Black Kite, imagine it was your neighbour on your door step, who the day before had moaned about the height of your Leyland Cypress. That's the situation here. If I mentioned to someone I'd had no interaction with that personal details on their user page could cause a problem that would be one thing. When I'm in disagreement with them over something it's clearly got another dimension. Pedro : Chat 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly re-phrase that comment? I can't quite understand it. Fell free to strike this when you do :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if you want to hand out advice to editors by email that they could run into "trouble" if they were reported in Real Life for their on-wiki activities it's probably best you are not in dispute with them at the time. Common sense is far more important than AGF in these types of situations. Pedro : Chat 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's been involved in a dispute doesn't automatically mean that his warning was in bad faith. The fact is, we can't know. I'm inclined to believe he was acting honestly and beneficiently. He's acknowledged that it may not have been the best move but that his intentions were pure, which is the best anyone can hope for short of actually being able to read his mind. I'm sure he's figured out that, though his intentions were noble, it wasn't the best move under these conditions, so I doubt he's going to do it again. There is absolutely no reason for him to continue to be blocked. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, Kurt, I have recommend an unblock at ANI. His intentions are unfathomable as you rightly point out, so we go with AGF. His action in sending that email was ill thought out at best, perhaps foolish at worse, but I see no value in CW being permanently blocked at this time - indeed a permanent block seems to be more harm than good for WP. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a consensus at ANI that you've retracted your threat, so I've unblocked you. Please be aware, if you ever let a threat or warning like this slip through to another editor again, by any means, mistakenly or not, you'll likely be banned from editing for a long time. As an aside, if you're in a dispute with someone, never, ever make a post or send them an email which hints they may have worries in real life owing to their edits on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will read the ANI thread and the above discussion in detail. I do admire your work and efforts here, but you must understand that in this particular risk/reward situation if the reward from your quality edits is outwayed by the risk of damaging the morale, work and effort of others you will be blocked permanently. I'm pleased to have supported your unblock but make no mistake in thinking that I condone your e-mail, however much it may have been in good faith.Pedro : Chat 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you were the victim of people shooting first and asking questions later, Colonel. Gwen is out of line here, and over reacted big time. Instead of apologizing she threatens you even more. blah. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lying Bastard

Thanks for the BS. It is encouraging to receive positive feedback once in a while. As you may have noticed, that particular AFD remained open after its logpage was 2 days past-due from being closed-out. It was one of those discussions that people like to avoid closing, because there were well-known wikipedians in good standing on both sides of the issue. I am very pleased that at least one such wikipedian on the opposite side of the closing decision, understands and appreciates the difficulty that such decisions sometimes are. Thanks, again. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rose School

Thanks for making me smile. [2]. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me for the Barnstar! - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal irrigation

This edit was less than constructive. I can't imagine what you were trying to do here, but it clearly is not within the spirit of citing sources. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts at ownership of that article continues to be a problem. Please seek consensus on the talk page before you remove any further templates as you did in this edit. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

I misunderstood you - and obviously didn't read the banners carefully. My apologies and thanks for explaining it, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

With regard to our dicussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#In a Nutshell:Yet more confusing wording, could you provide details of some articles that illustrate your concerns? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any further comments? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Othomolecular topics

Reported violations of arbitration decisions for enforcement

I have reported your actions at Orthomolecular psychiatry to WP:AE for enforcement. See this. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colonel Warden for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pholde

Hi, you recently took part in discussion for the deletion of Pholde. I have closed the AfD as Keep. Your suggestion of merger seemed most reasonable and there had been no recent discussion. Would you like to do the merger? :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I welcome you to comment in this ANI thread Masem started on me, seeing as you have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ahead of you - just had to get past an edit conflict. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon

Re: Talk:Pokémon, I Choose You!/GA1 I left some comments at the review page. —TheLeft orium 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure thought

Do think the following stub has the potential to be a decent, non-WP:dicdef article? Pure thought. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pure thoughts or an impure kind? :) I'm not familiar with the topic but it seems to be reasonable from the dicdef aspect. The main issue would seem to be whether it is not already well-covered by our article upon Kant and his philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroluria

What was this about? You knew full well there was a discussion at the noticeboard, as you commented there. It might have been productive to have linked to the discussion from the talkpage, something I probably should have done myself. But removing the tag was just silly when there was active discussion going on. Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The merge proposal was not properly formed and so I removed the tag. Another editor started it again more properly in response to my notification. Reverting additions with discussion so that they may be reconsidered, accords with our normal editing process such as WP:BRD and so should not be the occasion for complaint nor accusation of silliness. The action was similar in spirit to your speedy close of the related AFD, which was a sensible action. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Science

I've seen what I believe is philosophy POV pushing in the Religion and Science article and perhaps in some of the other articles in the Category:Religion and science category. Now of course, I could be POV pushing too, but I am usually quite careful to always put down references so that these can be used in discussions if and when a need arises. For example, I wrote this [3], which is simply a summary of a point from John Habgood's Science and Religion (1964), but it was replaced by this [4], which gives no reference source (it is not at all a summary of Habgood's work). So what I'm thinking is that this is a trend in the wikipedia culture being a kind of barbarism, sort of what famed literary critic Terry Eagleton has recently pointed out about society at large. According Eagleton, analytical philosophy is embarrassed by the very nature of theological questions

"and one of those places, surprisingly in many ways, is theology, I mean it is in some sectors of theology, that nowadays one can find the most informed and animated discussions of Delores [spelling is probably incorrect]] and bandeau [sipi] orFoucault and feminism, Marx, Hedgier, and so on. Not entirely surprising perhaps, because theology is one of the most startling ambitious theoretical arenas left to us in an increasingly specialist and fragmented world. One whose subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source. I mean you try raising that kind of question in analytical philosophy or political science, even in some theology departments, some theological departments might find themselves quite embarrassed by that. So we find ourselves in a very curious and incongruous situation. In a world in which theology is indubitably a massive part of the problem and has become so in new and unpredictable ways. As Ditchkins so rightly points out." Culture and Barbarism (timestamp ~ 50 minutes, April 10th, 2008)

Do you see these concerns of mine as reasonably valid and objective? If so, what sort of place on wikipedia should I raise these issues? (policy/guideline talk pages, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clear opinion upon the content of this article which is too wooly for my taste. Dispute resolution might be attempted by reference to the 3rd Opinion or Reliable Sources noticeboards, I suppose. Sorry not to be more helpful but if more ideas occur to me, I'll let you know. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too wooly an article...I've been trying to clean it up. Darn. At any rate, that's alright, I've never pursued a reliable source board b4. Good idea. Thanks. If any other ideas do pop up, I would love to hear them. Thank you again. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting match

Thanks for rewriting my article. Did you see the motivation section in an old revision? Was that suitable for the article? Was some of the information in that section suitable, or was it just information that didn't belong in place? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt some teenagers or mentally-ill folk have shouting matches but you really need a source to back up comments of this sort. My approach was to search through the sources and write sections based upon the interesting items I found there. If you look at the links on the talk page, you could start with those and then add other keywords to perhaps find sources on these other points. But while the article is at AFD it's best not to have such a section without a source as this invites criticism that the article is original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can find any resource(s) to verify my statements? -- IRP ☎ 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please check the Shouting match AfD, somebody has an idea. -- IRP ☎ 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which the idea is. Anyway, the AFD still hangs in the balance so I'll keep working on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Yobmod posted: Delete. The problem isn't that it is now a dictdef, it's that editors don't see how it could ever be expanded to be anything else. Add a "shouting matches in pop culture" section? "Historical development of shouting matches"? "Socioeconomic impact"? The title describes what it is, and there is then nothing more to say, hence no sources to write an encylopedia entry on. Unless sources appear, showing that psychologists or socialogists have written about this, the arguments for keep seem moot; There is simply nothing that can be written beyond "Shouting matches are matches in which people shout. they occur in many contexts, a random list is given below (disquised as an article). -- Comment copied to this page by IRP ☎ at 20:15 (UTC) on 6 October 2008

The article now contains sources of this kind and so Yobmod's comments are redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion: Bongomatic's suggestion (highlighted in green) -- IRP ☎ 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with Bongomatic's idea, you should tell him/her on his/her talk page as well. -- IRP ☎ 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, now, it doesn't matter anymore, because the AfD is now closed. -- IRP ☎ 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes

Hello again Colonel Warden, it is good to run into you again.

Be careful not to dedicate too much of your energy and time to this endeavor--your hard work and efforts may earn you a knife in the back.

There are at least two people on the AfD who have changed their view 180 degrees (and vote in the AFD) because of the caustic behaviortravb (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure quite what you mean but the article seems to have been given enough of a boost for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm train

One of the other articles I created, Storm train, has also been nominated for deletion. Can you help with this one, just as you did for Shouting match? -- IRP ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look too promising because the term doesn't seem to have much currency and I don't know enough about metereology to find the right one easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although User:Bongomatic tagged the storm train article for deletion, at least nobody voted "Delete" for the article in the AfD as of 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC). His/her deletion requests are vague, and I agree, I think it would make sense that he/she is just trying to attack the articles, by finding every possible excuse to have an article he/she sees, deleted. It is a very great thing that user is not an administrator. If Bongomatic was, a large fraction of Wikipedia's database would have been wiped out and devastated, and he/she would lose admin privileges in a heartbeat, and would probably be banned. -- IRP ☎ 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Although his/her goal might have been to expunge the article from Wikipedia, it actually brought some helpful editors to the article, and it improved dramatically. You were the most helpful editor! But please see Shouting match↓↓, because there is an update there. -- IRP ☎ 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teletubbies articles

Please continue to add on to these character, single, and tv show articles. I think if we can get the main article big enough we can spilt the characters off, or if neccery, merge them into the article Teletubbies characters. The one for the show itself needs massive work as well, and if you look at the version here, it could give you some insperation. Also, the last Charlotte's Web song from Charlotte's Web (1973 film), along with the others (they were deleted) could be merged too as this article needs massive work. 65.0.191.174 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and interest. I have improved the articles on Tinky Winky and their hit single. I'll perhaps do more on the Teletubbies but have little interest in Charlotte's Web. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been brought to my attention that you appear to be editing under the prompting of banned User:Bambifan101, or their sockpuppets, on articles including Teletubbies. Per WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users, edits by or on behalf of banned users are not permitted except where there is a consensus among remaining editors to do so. I urgently suggest that you cease editing on behalf of ip's - if they wish to make an edit, they can do so themselves and let it be examined - and reverting other editors who express a concern that those edits reflect that of a banned user unless you can achieve consensus through discussion. I would also strongly suggest that your edit summaries more properly reflect the effect of your edits. This is not a formal warning, but it is as strong an informal request to review the conduct of your editing as I am prepared to make. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My attention was drawn to the Teletubbies by Collectonian's posting on ANI and their general status as a major phenomenon in the UK and elsewhere. I don't know much about this banned user and their ideas as they are somewhat incoherent and their communications are being suppressed for some reason. My edits to the articles are based upon what I find in the relevant sources and so seem quite proper. I'm not sure sure what you mean about the edit summaries but I often make multiple changes in a single update and so might make some general statement indicating this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The communications are being suppressed because they are banned, which is where it is different to a block. They appear incoherent since the vandal hides the vandalism (you may not be aware how petty much of it is, a change of a few places in a chart placing for instance) within a screen of seeming innocuous edits. As for edit summaries, "consolidation" does not usually include removal of unduplicated warnings/comments. With regard to your comments, I would now request you not to include edits at the behest of any other party and not to include detail that you are unable to provide a source for upon request. I would also request you do not perform any merges on articles where there has been a previous unsuccesfull application by Bambifan101 or any "Disney Vandal" sockpuppet without first getting a new consensus from existing editors, and not to revert again any revision made under that argument. Please regard this as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not owned by particular editors, per WP:OWN. I happened across an article about someone's famous pig at AFD earlier today. The whimsical title caught my eye and so I took an interest. It turns out that this is the same general area over which Collectonian seems to have been warring with the Bambi person - Charlotte's Web. Likewise, I involved myself in the Thumper article due to its appearance at AFD and, IIRC, this was overwhelmingly kept despite Collectonian's desire to delete. I am as generally familiar with the Disney canon as anyone and have my own personal favourites. If I should see such an article of interest at AFD or a similar noticeboard, I will take an interest as usual. I do not see how I can know whether this Bambi person has been there too and so your warning seems impractical. Since I edit from sources to improve articles, my work should be judged on its merits. Please see our policy which explains that improvement of the encyclopedia is a higher goal than observance of petty rules. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonel Warden. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Your recent edits which seem to be supportive of and acting as a proxy for a well known vandal and sockpuppet. See the Bambifan101 related protection requests thread. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded over there. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended you considerable good faith over the time you've been editing here. You've used it up.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I think kww owes you a bit of an apology here. Anyhow, good work on the eh-oh article! Artw (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom of Teletubbies say Eh-oh!

Hello! Your submission of Teletubbies say Eh-oh! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

That was Terrakyte. There are now comments from me. Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done as you suggest. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teletubbies say Eh-oh!, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GA Review of Teletubbies say Eh-oh

Regarding another GA nomination, you would start over, per the instructions at WP:GAN. Regarding whether the original reviewer could review it again, I didn't see anything in the instructions either way, but in this particular case I would leave it to someone else to bring their own perspective to it (and they can always see my comments from the first review). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiddlywinks

Thanks for the message. I have fessed up. BasilSorbie (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

Hi this is blackash from Pooktre. I removed the tag on the discussion page, because I followed a couple of links and they lead to google. I thought does this need to be here? Ummm not really. so I removed it. I removed the names in the leading sentence, not to enforce usage of a particular name but to stop the branding of a particular name across art work of others. This discussion started on the Pooktre for delete page. [5]. I don't care what the overall name for the art form is as long as the name isn't linked with a method. Blackash (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer)

Actually, this article was created by a mass hoaxer, whom has a discussion at WP:ANI; overall, the consensus was to delete the obvious hoaxes and block the user. Thank you for your concern, though. In addition, I was not the closing admin; 19:25, 13 March 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) deleted "Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer)" ‎ (created by serial hoaxer) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here, to be precise :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking deleting administrator. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)

Check out the more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub there enables. -74.162.128.218 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocational Guidance Counsellor

The last time this Python sketch was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects Sketch (2nd nomination))), you expressed an opinion that it (along with many others) may be improved (presumably to satisfy inclusion criteria). As someone's made an attempt to propose it for deletion again (along with a few others), I suspect this article may be at AfD quite soon, so you may wish to put your thoughts into action. 212.32.120.163 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing for the moment the above borderline canvassing, could I ask that when removing PROD tags, you include some form of rationale or explanation in your edit summary? That's a good practice as it explains to the tagger why you feel that the tag shouldn't apply. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor took sensible action in alerting me. Attempting to delete articles upon notable topics without proper discussion is improper and so such tags will be removed in the same peremptory manner with which they were placed. Colonel Warden (talk)

Y Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Obvious (Monty Python character)
Y Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocational Guidance Counsellor
Y Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live from the Grill-O-Mat
Y Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilimanjaro Expedition
Y Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Lesson

OK, I'm sorry you feel that way. I would point out that the policy on PRODding says, "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page," and it was that which caused me to message you. I provided a rationale for deletion (though you may not accept it, it was certainly there, I attempted to justify my actions), and you provided none for removing the tag, and then classify my actions as disruptive.

Please reconsider your attitude; at least give me the credit that I'm not trying to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not presume to understand your motives. My point is that your actions are disruptive and that they may be improved upon by following the process laid down at WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My actions are not disruptive; if you still think that nominating unsourced articles with no assertions of notability for deletion is disruptive, then feel free to report me on ANI (the appropriate venue for dealing with disruptive conduct), or file an RfC or RfArb on my conduct. I consider that posting a request for community consensus on an issue isn't disruptive, and I object to your unilateral labelling of it as such.

My point about the PROD tags stemmed from policy, and refusing to justify your actions just because you think I'm being disruptive isn't really appropriate IMO. However, we'll let the AfDs run their course, and agree to diagree, if that's OK.

I think that we'd better end our dialogue over this issue here, as it's not going to go anywhere constructive! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should review the matter after the AFDs are concluded. Regarding the PRODs, iirc, I removed those in combination with edits which improved the articles. It was all a bit of a rush because it seemed I had to act quickly to research and improve several articles at once. That is the trouble with such deletion sprees and immediate escalation - too much at once. It is better to tag the articles for improvement with corresponding talk. Then allow time to elapse before PROD. Then again allow time to elapse before AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

I noted your rescue tag on Hinduism and science. Thank you. Is there any more you can do to help, you to encourage others to help, to save the following articles (all of which are under assault by user: Andyjsmith? Buddhism and the body, Islam and civil rights, Taoism and death, Christianity in Haiti, Jewish clothing. Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, it was Taoism and death which I tagged. You are free to add similar rescue tags to other articles. This will spread the load amongst the various editors of the WP:ARS. Jewish clothing seems an easy save but I am less familiar with the other topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually I already saved Jewish clothing - see the recent history. I don't see how to save the others (and neither does anyone else) but I always withdraw my nominations if someone's making genuine progress in sorting things out. andy (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined in an earlier cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE

Hi: just wanted thank you for your quoting of WP:BEFORE when needed. The repetition of the line "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" is perhaps the most pertinent, useful, non-judgmental, and overall sane point I've seen made in a deletion debate. Thank You! T L Miles (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - you are most welcome. The master of such useful thoughts is User:Uncle G and that sentence sounds like his work. He has written many useful essays such as Wikipedia triage which develop the point. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Colonel Warden, thank you for all the wonderful work you do, on so many pages. I am really impressed by your dedication and hard work. Ikip (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and sex

No problem and thank you, it's an interesting topic! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

At the least we need wider attention. Do you want to list it. Or should we go directly to RfC. DGG (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That speedy deletion of BLP matter? I came across it at centralised discussion, so I don't understand what more you're suggesting. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Colonel Warden. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again

I appreciate your comments

WikiThanks

Thank you for your comments on WP:ARS, regarding South Park. I really appreciate all of your hard work and efforts. Ikip (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Merge subpage

Thoughts, commments to this proposal? I don't want to post this idea on WP:ARS yet until possible problems and objections are hammered out. I have invited a couple of other editors here to comment on this proposal too. Please edit this proposal suggestion as you see fit.

PROPOSAL:

Merging has been described before as a back door deletion. Although the edit history is retained in a merge, the average reader will never read the content, and large portions of text are buried. In both a deletion and merge discussions, usually the same opposing editors are involved, and the rescuing tools are the same.

I was wondering what fellow rescue members thought of a merge subpage to Article Rescue Squadron, for example: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Merge. The role of this subpage would be the same as Article Rescue Squadron: find sources for articles and establish inclusion, except it would involve pages which are under the threat of being merged.

A tag can be added below the merge tag, on the main page:

A sister talk page could be established just for merges.

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Merge would not only help save countless articles from merging, and make wikipedia more encyclopedic, it would further increase Article Rescue Squadron membership and visibility.

Ikip (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest you change the language from "that demonstrate the proposed merged pages meets the inclusion criteria" to "that demonstrate that the the subject of page proposed to be merged meets the criteria for inclusion as a separate article". Bongomatic 08:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the wonderful unsolicited suggestion! What a nice suprise. I instituted "that demonstrate the proposed merged page subject meets the inclusion criteria as a separate article." into the proposal. Have a great weekend, and thanks again! :) Ikip (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an interesting idea. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben

Care to provide an actual counter argument to my edit summary, rather than just a flat revert? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have responded at the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To market, To market

You changed my edits so fast that I did not have time to make the necessary adjustments to the article to indicate that 'To market, to market', is in fact the title, as used in the key authority (Opie, 1951), since it covers all versions. Since mine was clearly a good-faith edit, on which we are not supposed to use rollback, it might have been a good idea to talk to me before doing this. It is for this same reason that I have not reversed your edits. I hope you will now reverse the process on reading the revised article at To market, to market, as this has left things in rather a mess.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter will be best discussed at the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That puts me in the position of having to argue for deletion of an article that probably only you and I are watching at the moment. I only did this move myself because I thought it uncontroversial. If you think my change is controversial we should return to the status quo ante and I will reverse my edits and we should discuss it on the original To market, to buy a fat pig page, where other editors are more likely to contribute.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that we shall be deleting anything - merger is indicated. I have started some talk at Talk:To market, to market, to buy a fat pig#Title. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh overlapping edits. Ok I will respond to that on the page.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Also off to bed. Ok be good to get some other input, but I think it can be sorted by merger between us.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morning. That is fine, obviously. Just to make sure - do you want me to put the request for merger in?--Sabrebd (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK its done and thanks for this. It seemed a lot less important to me after a few-hours sleep as well. Have a good day.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, the request at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen was declined and then the whole of the article moved to To market, to market on the grounds that they are the same. That is not quite true. I will look at the two later and see if there is anything that I think could usefully come over from my revision that isn't there and talk to you about it.--Sabrebd (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no log. Doing what they did overlayed the version I had there and this on virtually the only article I didn't have a copy of.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have been busy for a couple of days. Thanks for the link. I think it is a matter of sticking the origins sections into the rhyme and perhaps a couple of issues in format. Shouldn't be very controversial.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This now finally, done. Please have a look and see if it is OK when you can find time.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy

Please see the comments that I have left on the aforementioned page. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And again. Dalejenkins | 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IC RfC

If you're interested in discussing the youth of my account, Colonel, or the remarkable allegation that I have but a single-purpose here (considering I've been under attack since I got here, I haven't had much time for any other purposes, as yet, have I?), feel free to leave them on my Talk page, or initiate a WQA or other investigatory procedure regarding my account.

Between Ratel and myself, one of us has been cleared of any allegation of wrongdoing. And it is not Ratel.

The IC RfC is, as David Wilson has made quite clear, no place for such references and allegations. In short: cut it out. As you've seen, I have no hesitation regarding bringing those who I believe to be treating others unfairly to the attention of the WP community - particularly if I myself am the target. If you are unable to reach an honest consensus based on the facts in evidence, without resorting to irrelevant references to a user's account, then perhaps you should refrain from voting. That, in itself, bespeaks a WP:COI.

Stay on topic. Scramblecase (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to tell you that I didn't think your "SPA" note was appropriate on the IC talk page, but I see Scramblecase has already made that point. We're finally getting to the point where substance can be discussed, and I really don't want that to derail into uselessness once again. So let's discuss the substance of the issue, and stop with the useless labeling. I have come to expect that from Ratel, but I didn't expect it from you. Personally, I find the SPA label itself misguided on several levels. First, many people contribute to articles or sections of articles that they have interest in and knowledge of, and there's nothing wrong with that. Calling someone a SPA for doing so is silly and counterproductive. Second, by definition, all new users are SPAs for at least a little while. Anyone who uses this label to belittle or harass a newcomer is, in my opinion, incredibly misguided (at best). Let's judge people by the content of their work, and not on an arbitrary label. If you see flaws with something that someone has written, then by all means, point those flaws out. And remember: even if you think someone is a SPA, he or she may have a relevant point to make. So do try to play the ball and not the man. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA tag is routinely used in such cases as a proper warning of attempts at vote stacking. If Scramblecase is a bona fide new user and new users are valid in such circumstance then there is no objection to being identified as such. But some may discount the contributions of new users in such cases as being unfamiliar with our policies. The tag is purely informational and editors may make of it what they will. I shall continue to restore it so that observers may be fully informed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), here - protracted acrimonious discussions frequently attract suspiciously well-informed new accounts, and a brief non-judgmental tag is appropriate given the paucity of Scramblecase (talk · contribs)'s edit history. No further comment to that effect should be made at that discussion, though, and railing about suspicions (particularly those which have been non-supported by a checkuser) may be seen as poisoning the well or discouraging new editors. Fundamentally, discussions are decided on the merits of the arguments presented, and new contributors become readily distinguishable from sock puppets fairly quickly. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, suspiciously in the foregoing refers to the general case, I am still reviewing the background for the IC/PBS RfC, and have at present no opinion. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Christian1985

You are the main topic of discussion there.

I find it ironic that he accuses others of canvassing in the RfC. Ikip (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

at my talk page. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle torture

Thanks for your improvements to Tickle torture, it's looking significantly better. However could I further suggest that calling my nomination an "embarrassment to Wikipedia" is perhaps a violation of WP:AGF? We are all trying to make the encyclopedia better, after all. Best, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment addresses the quality of the nomination, not the motives of its author, which are, no doubt, well-meaning. As it repeats a similar phrase from the nomination, it seemed apposite. If you find the usage unpleasant, please indicate by example, a better phrasing. In other words, if you amend your nomination, I shall likewise amend my response, ok? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have closed the nomination so I won't be editing it now. I appreciate you were copying my words but I still feel that "I disagree with the nomination" might have been better than "the nomination is an embarrassment"! Anyway, no big deal. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that the AFD has closed now. The article still needs attention as I suspect that some of the material may be a hoax. But it's hard to tell when we have featured articles like Crushing by elephant. The goat doesn't seem so bad, by comparison ... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gleaners

They're trying to remove this newly created article for an important organisation in the fight against hunger. Please help! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, FeydHuxtable, please read WP:CANVASS. Colonel, the "thousands of sources" being found are for Gleaners are for one of a similar name in Indianapolis. This particular article at AfD is about a food bank of the same name in Jackson, Mississippi of which I could only find 1 reliable source for, hence why I nommed it for AfD. Additionally, I live in Jackson, Mississippi and have never in my life heard of Gleaners. So, I just wanted to point out the difference in the 2 Gleaners and that this article isn't about the same one that all of the Google Indianapolis hits are for. Thanks. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These points are best made in the AFD discussion where all may read them. I have no special interest in the topic and WP:CANVASS seems inappropriate in that my input will be a good faith assessment of the topic from a baseline of nil. My current thought is that the topic might best be addressed at a higher level as there are no doubt similar organisations in many places. Perhaps there are articles about this already. The process described at WP:BEFORE is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

Hi Colonel Warden. Recalling your comments here, I think you'll be glad to know that I found a quote from an authority figure to replace Gardner's in the lead of Bates method. Ironically the (secondary) source had it right next to the Gardner quote in question. We have gotten the article to GA, and I'm interested to know what you think about its FA prospects (I ask because I noticed you have been at least somewhat active in WP:FAC discussions.) My feeling is that we may need better, current sources for the first main section, since it deals with the nature of the conditions the Bates method proposes to treat, but other than that I think it may be there. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion...

On this list... either as an essay or an addition to WP:RS or WP:NF.... Reliable sources for horror films. Its still undergoing a lot of work, but I think I have made some decent progress. Care to assist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E

I'm just curious, for my own understanding: Under what circumstances do you believe BLP1E applies? Could you give me some examples of when you feel it would come into play? I'm not looking for a debate; just want to know your opinion. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to "low profile" people which I understand to be those on the fringe of a big event. For example, consider Hollie Steel. She's not low profile, as we have lots of coverage for her. Her parents and brother get mentions in this coverage but they currently don't seem to warrant separate articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Colonel Warden. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see this discussion and decide whether to change your vote to merge. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Martin Afd

We've just about come to a consensus on the Clan Martin AfD - as you're the only major dissenter left, it'd be great if you could update your comments and then hopefully we can knock it on the head. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus to delete which is all that matters at AFD. Issues of merger and improvement can be dealt with at our leisure. My impression is that the article's content is no hoax and so all capable of verification. I have just done some work on the motto, to confirm this. The main trouble seems to be that the Martins are not a single clan/family and so the scope of the article is unclear. Your suggestion of redirection to the Martin dab page has merit but I'm not sure what would become of the content then. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it would still be helpful for you to post back. In any case, the consensus is to redirect - and certainly my vote to save is wholly conditional on Clan Martin being no more than a courtesy redirect, reflecting not the existence of an actual clan but an understandable mistake that some people might make. If it is to be an actual article, then my vote would immediately be switched to "delete". Having a fair amount of experience of researching early clan history, it usually starts to run out some time in the 12th/13th century and even as late as the 15th century it is pretty woolly, even for major clans. Personally I think there is a significant possibility that this is a hoax, all this going back to the 6th century just feels a bit too good to be true. Even the existence of a "Clan Martin" is pretty dubious - even back in the 14th century the bunch in Letterfinlay seem to have been referred to as MacMartins rather than Martin, and they're the only group of Martins that appear to have been distinct enough to have their own chief. There hasn't been any formal clan since then - and a clan is not a fuzzy "group of people with the same name" as you perhaps seem to think, it has a distinct legal standing. However there does seem to be a move at the moment by people wanting to resurrect the concept of a clan, perhaps to cash in on the geneaology boom - and I think for that reason we have to be extra-careful about our sources for verifying this stuff. Hence my comment that it should be subject to WP:REDFLAG - the lack of references in the usual WP:RS for clan stuff combined with this apparent commercial agenda just makes me a bit dubious. But if any of the stuff in the article can be verified, then I suspect it probably belongs in the "name" article, and perhaps appropriate bits can be added to the Cameron article. I appreciate your work for the Squadron and everything, but I think in this case you should perhaps take more heed of Project specialists like User:Celtus and Brodie - not least because the latter is a clan chief himself so should know what he's talking about! :-) Le Deluge (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of Martin

I noted your edits on the motto at Clan Martin. I feel uneasy about this. Are you insinuating the motto you gave is that of the chief? Can you point to a reference which designates the Martins of Cleveragh and Bloomfield as the chiefs of Clan Martin (or the chief of the name and arms of Martin)? Why did you chose the motto you gave from all the other mottoes of various Martins? My thinking and concern is that the matter may be getting out of hand, first we have a Clan without references, and now the article is slowly moving to appoint a chief without references. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be best discussed at the article's talk page rather than here or at the AFD. But to explain my edits, I did not choose the motto which was already in the article. I searched sources to confirm whether this was a genuine Martin motto. It seemed that it was and so I cited accordingly. The other mottoes are perhaps worthy of mention too but my initial focus was to substantiate the material which we already have. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again - you need to be careful here. Brodie's the man for the specifics, but just at a general level, identifiers are associated with specific groups. Thus in this case if the the Martins of Skye were a distinct sept of a Skye clan, they would have different identifiers to a sept of a Lothian clan. You can't just say "someone called Martin has been associated with X,Y and Z, therefore "X,Y and Z are associated with Martins". I appreciate your attempts to reference things like the motto, but in fact you're misreferencing them, using WP:OR to draw conclusions that aren't present in the references. For instance, your Elven reference doesn't work, but I assume that it was something like this - which like the Burke reference just says that it is associated with someone called Martin. Not the specific organisation that a Clan Martin would be, and certainly not the MacMartins of Letterfinlay, which is your implication. I hope you don't feel you're being ganged up on here, but you've got to be really precise with this stuff. PS When you're referencing stuff from Google Books, adding &pg=PA71 helps your readers find page 71 or whatever, it's a big help. Le Deluge (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito bat

Look, I've no wish to burden you unnecessarily, but given your involvement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Repellers, and the improvements you made to Cat Repellers, I wondered whether you could take a look at Mosquito bat. Some well-intentioned editor (read "kid who likes slapping tags on things") proposed it for deletion; while I don't know that it necessarily warrants its own article, it does seem to be verifiable, and therefore not an uncontroversial case for deletion. 212.32.68.48 (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the article a polish. Please don't be shy about doing similar work yourself - see WP:BOLD. See also Shocking Duel... Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's College, Crosby

If you aren't too busy with your tight trousers, could you spare a moment to review the lead and first section of the St Mary's College, Crosby article. I came across this last week and found a POV tag dating back to Dec 2007 and a history of frustrated editors who felt it should mention the apparently harsh corporal punishment regime when the school was run by the Congregation of Christian Brothers. I've found some sources and tidied it up, what it needs now is a sense check from a dispassionate editor. Can you help? Thanks either way. - Pointillist (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked the current version over and it seems fine. I have added the article to my watch list and so will keep an eye on it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: closure is a precious gift. Pointillist (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

If you actually have an argument to make in reverting my edits at Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, make it. Repeatedly reverting one's edits in such a disruptive manner can and will be considered vandalism, no matter how much content is being added or removed. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted by more than one editor and so lack consensus. Please engage in talk at the article's talk page where you will find extensive discussion by myself and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this discussion, then? Your reversion of my edits alone does not justify the keeping of this article. As I said before, if you have a point to make, make it; such repeat reversions of my edits without explanations as to your motives are nothing more than disruptive, no matter what content is involved or what the consensus may be. Consensus is nothing without discussion. Furthermore, please reply on my talk page in future, otherwise I won't be notified of your reply. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD which explains the process for such cases. I respond here in order to keep the discussion together, as explained on my user page. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - So where's the discussion on your part? I've already stated my reasons for redirecting the article in edit summaries. Such discussion should really take place at Talk:Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny so others can see, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edit summary for your merger was just "merged to Neil Cicierega#Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny". In any case, edit summaries are not a substitute for proper discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well I stated in another summary that some other content I removed was original research; such absence of sources is essentially the reason why I merged this. Anyway, I still haven't heard any reasons against merging on your part yet, so please discuss it on the article's talk page. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horsey hoofies and all that

Hi Col. W, Just letting you know a little of the history on the barefoot horses page and natural hoof care issue. There is a reasonable dispute over whether "barefoot movement" or "natural hoof care" is more appropriate and I really don't have the answer, and Google is not always the best source, though it is a tool. The article, as well as the ones on horseshoes and farriery, are also occasional subjects of edit wars. Basically, the natural hoof or "barefooter" crowd puts up a bunch of material, and no sooner is it up then the horseshoers get upset about it being there. Or the barefooters start to put up fringe theories about horseshoes or laminitis or whatever in other articles and the vets throw a fit. I have sort of been trying to be the neutral person on these articles to try and fairly explain the barefoot movement in a fair way with both its pluses and its criticisms, but also keep out the spam, advertising and WP:FRINGE stuff from mainstream articles. I also try to tone down the traditional folks who think the whole thing should be deleted as a fad. Anyway, I don't want to make a big deal out of which name a merged article gets as long as it can't be claimed that only one practitioner's views or terminology are being used or someone is engaging in personal PR...basically my axe to grind is that I value the NPOV approach of wikipedia a great deal and don't care much for fanaticism in any field, so will be cautious about allowing some of the more unsubstantiated claims to go forward without caveats about no outside verification, etc... Anyway, I posted this all here and not on the article pages because it's all more by the way of background than relevant to the actual question in the articles. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesty notice

Two of your edit diffs are mentioned here. Ikip (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with your nonsense on my talk page, as you have nothing to contribute

Exactly as predicted by myself and others, you are trying to use WP:BEFORE as some sort of club to pretend that articles that clearly need to be deleted should not be and to intimidate editors who are actually following notability policy. Please do not post to my talk page with such nonsense again, and, furthermore, considering your past history of other false accusations and highly uncivil behavior, it's best i you don't bother to post there at all for any reason, per the text in bold at the top of the page. Suffice it to say that you're idea of how Wikipedia works is completely at odds with its actual policies, and you are the last person to be trying to tell other people what they should and should not be doing. 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 663: / Line 663: @@
 ==Courtesty notice==
 Two of your edit diffs are [[User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#an_inappropriate_revert| mentioned here]]. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
+== Don't bother with your nonsense on my talk page, as you have nothing to contribute ==
+Exactly as predicted by myself and others, you are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=291129609&oldid=291115412 trying] to use [[WP:BEFORE]] as some sort of club to pretend that articles that clearly need to be deleted should not be and to intimidate editors who are actually following notability policy. Please do not post to my talk page with such nonsense again, and, furthermore, considering your past history of other false accusations and highly uncivil behavior, it's best i you don't bother to post there at all for any reason, per the text in bold at the top of the page. Suffice it to say that you're idea of how Wikipedia works is completely at odds with its actual policies, and you are the last person to be trying to tell other people what they should and should not be doing. 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)