User talk:Adamfinmo/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Confirming my edit on Winx Club

I was reverting nonsense. What IP vandal have done with Winx Club article was adding nonsense. Winx Club and Power Rangers didn't make crossover actually.--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 12:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John Lydon

Thanks for alerting me to the 3RR rule. However, I would ask you to familiarize yourself with this rule in more detail. It states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. If you have a look at the history of the JL page, you will see that I had done 3 reverts on said page within a 24-h period. I am very averse to and cognizant of the negative effects of edit warring. I only resort to repeated reverts when I have found evidence that an editor has made it his/her mission to foist his/her singular view onto the readership--in this case it is obvious that this editor created an account solely for the purpose of "editing" the JL page in this way. Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Sandbox

I'm terribly sorry about the mixup. I have restored User:Adamfinmo/Sandbox. When you added the speedy deletion tag with this edit, I thought you were requesting that your sandbox be deleted. Editors often request that some of their subpages be deleted, so it seemed pretty standard. However, it looks like you were testing out the templates. Sorry for the inconvience, but you may want to take the speedy deletion tag off the page or put a note that you don't actually want it deleted. Having the tag there makes your sandbox appear at CAT:CSD, a list of pages to be deleted. Again, I'm sorry about the confusion. If you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to ask. Useight (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Clearly, things have not gone well. May I suggest the following solution?

1. We apologize to each other for any problems or hurt feelings. 2. We remove our respective WQA Alerts immediately and resolve to settle this ourselves. 3. I would ask that you remove the deletion request from the Richard Sumner article. As I can gather more information on Richard Sumner's life, I will add it to the article. I have not done this recently, due to other offline concerns. 4. We make an effort to avoid each other's editing.

Does that sound fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entry that was perceived as insulting. If earlier language was perceived as a personal attack, I regret that since I clearly did not intend my language to be demeaning and I apologize for any hurt feelings. I am also removing the WQA, with the hope this will be addressed in a mature and civil manner. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You did make it. I am sorry, I didn't see it. I will remove the WQA. Are things settled now?--Adamfinmo (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

Also, 75% of the List of unusual deaths would need to be removed, since that list is supposed to constitute NOTABLE people who perished in extraordinary ways. There are very few famous people on that list -- most of those people are notable only for how they died, not for how they lived. You have a lot of AFDs to do -- not just Carl McCunn. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have any specific suggestions, I would love to hear them. Start a new section here and we could work through them together. I think it would be a great show of good will if you and I could work on it as a team.--Adamfinmo (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe later in the day -- it is 1:17am and I am going to sleep! Ecoleetage (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I am glad we could work it out. I will be looking for your suggestions.--Adamfinmo (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that any entry doesn't belong then delete it. If you feel any article fails WP standards then nominate it. I will continue to do the same. It should also be noted that Mr. Sumner is still listed there per the stated purpose of the list.--Adamfinmo (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the 20th and 21st centuries, I would recommend removing the following individuals, who are notable solely for the manner in which they died. None of these people achieved any notice during their lifetime.

20th century

 1912: Franz Reichelt  1932: Eben Byers  1933: Michael Malloy  1947: The Collyer brothers  1967: Harold Holt (drowning is not an unusual death, and his disappearance is cited in another article on famous people who disappeared).  1971: Jerome Irving Rodale (dying of a heart attack is not unusual, even if it happens on a TV show).  1973: Bruce Lee (fatal allergic reactions are not unusual).  1979: Robert Williams  1981: Renée Hartevelt  1981: Carl McCunn  1984: Jim Fixx (heart attack death is not unusual).  1984: Jon-Erik Hexum (accidental gun suicide is not unusual – read the News of the Weird column)  1984: Tommy Cooper (not unusual)  1986: Jane Dornacker (aviation-related crashes are not unusual)  1987: Dick Shawn (great comic, but not an unusual death)  1990: Joseph W. Burrus  1993: Brandon Lee (tragic, but not unusual death)  1993: Garry Hoy  1996: Sharon Lopatka  * 1998: Daniel V. Jones  * 1998: Tom and Eileen Lonergan (although it inspired the movie “Open Water,” the Lonergans were not notable prior to their disappearance).

21st century

Steve Irwin and Alexander Litvinenko were the only people who were genuinely notable to a wide number of people (Richard Sumner was known in British theatrical design circles, admittedly a small sphere). Everyone else is famous only for the manner of their death, very few of which go beyond variations of your typical accidents (two children on the list died from freak accidents, which were tragic but stretch the notion of "unusual"). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good. That's just the 20th and 21st centuries, of course -- I've not had time to go back further through the centuries, otherwise I'd throw in more suggestions. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In a semi-related manner: inspired by your AfDs, I created my first AfDs and you are welcome to chime in on that vote: Chastity cage (but be forewarned of naughty content) and Laughing Baby. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I checked out the chastity cage and I will take a look at the other. By the way did you know about this vandalism to your user page? Adamfinmo (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, and I was genuinely touched that you fixed it. Thank you for looking out for me. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up -- the debate to delete the article on Carl McCunn ended in a "No Consensus" decision. Does that mean we have to renominate it for AfD? I am genuinely surprised, especially since the Richard Sumner article (which was very similar in its one-event posthumous notability) got canned. I have already submitted it for Deletion Review, to get closure, so feel free to join that debate. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I discovered that the deletion review is not the right way to address this matter. Oh well, silly me. I'll reintroduce the AfD in a month or so. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I am with you. They guy is a footnote in someones book. He should have been merged w/ Into the wild.--Adam in MO Talk 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ecoleetage

You seem to have a problem with ecoleetage as he i have adopted him i would like to know what is going on and help you both Grandoldman (talk) ) ecoleetage adopter

My response--Adamfinmo (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that intrusion. Let me know when you want to go over the Unusual Deaths list. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Sure, I'd be happy to adopt you. I see you are already doing all kinds of editing, so congratulations on that (and keep up your good use of edit summaries). I'd advise you to to see if there are any Wikipedia:Wikiprojects you'd like to join, that's always a good way to get more involved in editing collaborations. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea there was so much going on here when I started my account. For the last two months I have tried some different things just to get into the flow. I will take a look at the Wikiprojects and see if there is anything I can help with. I am not very good at producing content but, I have a taste for formating and general appearance. Again thanks for the adoption.--Adamfinmo (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Worthy?

Hey, I have a bit of a problem. There's an article on Wikipedia that I believe should be up for an AfD nomination. However, I know the guy who is the subject of the article and I don't want to incur a COI problem. Please take a look at [[1]] and let me know if you think the article should be up for an AfD. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the rub - there are no independent sources. Everything I can find online was self-promotional (even the Wikipedia article, which he created - COI problems?). It bothers me, since I've seen some articles with independent and notable sources deleted (including my Richard Sumner piece), but stuff like this remains online. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

userbox relocation

Hi, just a heads up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I-55 concurrency

Just wondering why you made all those changes without discussing it with me, especially when I spent some time to do it. If you think Interstate Guide is not a worthy reference, explain to me so that I don't use them as a "reliable source" in anything I do. Or if you have another reason, pass it along. Just wanted to show you this link that shows an overlap of I-55 and I-44, which shows that I'm not all that incorrect.Bodo920 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my talk was misunderstood, but I can see how you might see how I was "taking ownership." I apologize for that. My point was only that I wasn't just messing around; my edits had a point and were trying to make the article more accurate. Because I made edits related to the same point, I thought that, before they were reversed, you might want to discuss it with me to share viewpoints. But I didn't include that fhwa cite, for some reason, which probably would have helped.

Anyway, do you think we can revert it back to my last edit?Bodo920 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging article

Hi. Just want to inform you that you have tagged an article with a wrong speedy tag. Its an album, not the band. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Adam in MO Talk 09:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Thanks for the quick response. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Are you aware the once an assertion of notability is made the article does not qualify for A7 . As such Macroom GAA is a bad nom as it has several asserts of notability Gnevin (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed.--Adam in MO Talk 19:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken warning

Regarding User_talk:Kpjas#Play_Nice, I think you made a mistake. There is no incivility there, the dude phrase is the title of the articke Kjpas was warning the other user about... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you are correct. The rest of the post got deleted and it appear like a personal attack. I removed the warning and request forgiveness.--Adam in MO Talk 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars invitation

I have noticed that you are listed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, which has been defunct for a long time. I would like to inform you that I am attempting to revitalize it. As such, I would officially like to invite you to participate in the project once again. If you are interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Star Wars#February 2009 Roll Call. Hope to see you soon! Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rock cycle in kids perspective

Hi. You removed a PROD tag from this article saying that "there is plenty of good content here." I've looked it over, and I don't see anything that we don't already have, mostly in the Rock cycle article. If there is any new information here it might be worth merging to Rock cycle or some other relevant article (although unfortunately no sources are provided). Do you see anything? Thanks, FreplySpang 02:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is there any good info that doesn't already appear in Rock cycle or related articles? Wikipedia doesn't do articles "from kids' perspectives," so any good info should be merged into the existing article. Would you be willing to take the time to go through and find it? I haven't come across anything that we didn't already have. FreplySpang 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I put a speedy tag back on this article. Further investigation shows that nearly all of the article is a copyright violation. See it's talk page for links.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic patrolling of tagged pages at New Page patrol

Hi there. There is a suggestion to get a bot to patrol any New Page that an editor has tagged for CSD, AfD, etc. As someone who patrols a lot, your opinion is particularly welcomed. --Ged UK 10:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Globalize" tag

I don't quite understand what is wrong with this page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It assumes one know what channel 4 is. Is that a radio station or a website? I know it is a television station but many wouldn't. What is an FC? One should only have to click a wikilink to find more information. The contents of the article/list should stand on there own. It is also written with the assumption that one is knowledgeable about the characters and setting, in an in universe style.--Adam in MO Talk 05:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't that why Channel 4 and Everton/Liverpool FC are wikilinked - so that someone who doesn't know what they are can find out? I'll agree that it is primarily written in-universe, but isn't that an issue of all character pages/lists? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets move this to the article talk page. [2]--Adam in MO Talk 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

POV in SoCIP

The SoCIP article includes the sentence:

"Being in SoCIP should mean fun and experience."

That is POV.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Good luck with the new tool! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you have against that section

The dinosauroid is a notable topic in popular palaeontology, and while it may be speculation it has a firmer scientific grounding than anything else in that insane article. Serendi ^pod ous 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish nazi lizards ?!?!? I nearly spat water all over my laptop. I responded on the article talk.--Adam in MO Talk 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Redesigning the View Askew Project Page

Hello, Adamfinmo. I have been working on redesigning the main page for the View Askew WikiProject at this page. So before I went on and changed the main page, I wanted to ask all the members how they felt about it. So could you take a look at it and give any suggestions to improving it on the project's talk page? Thank You. WikiGuy86 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice Job on Dot-Com Bubble List Removal

Hey, nice job editing the Dot-com bubble article and removing all of the most important companies from the Dot-com era. Hopefully no one will actually use the article as a source of genuine information, as the companies you have left in the list are for the most part inconsequential now, as they were at the time... Maybe you should go edit the List of countries article and remove the countries you don't like... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make constructive edits then do so. But don't leave silly, sarcastic messages on my talk page. Read Don't be a dick.--Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it would also be nice if you made some sense..."as the companies you have left in the list are for the most part inconsequential now, as they were at the time"... They are inconsequential now, and were at the time, also ???? Check this out Doublethink, maybe it will help. Cheers :)--Adam in MO Talk 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Adam. Now I can see what that the problem is... First of all, the contrast you make does not qualify as Doublethink. If you can, you may want to check your application of logic. And two, I made the comment because you rendered the article quite useless... You may have thought you were contributing something when you made the edit, but simply showing up for the game doesn't contribute a touchdown... Your actions on the article were counterproductive to put it politely... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have two choices here. You can send me your postal address, so I can send you something dry to cry on, or you can get off my talk page and fix the article. What do you hope to accomplish here? Should I have cowered at your biting sarcasim? Should I bow to your superior use of an anonymous internet handle and a computer? You have an opinion. You have communicated it. I am fully and officially blowing your opinion off. So move along and troll elsewhere.

FYI If you don't like the edit I made, instead of crying about it, FIX IT. Be bold!!! Happy Editing!--Adam in MO Talk 06:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam, I am well aware that I could "fix it", but don't have the time to fix it. That is why I was complaining about your irresponsible actions. It will simply remain a useless article... My suggestion through inference was, 'you fix it' back to what it was... Usually, when one doesn't know anything about a subject it is better to not say anything... Take care. Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My edit did fix it. So thanks for the passive-aggresive messages, but if you are done whining I better things to do. I am done with this thread. I stand by my edit, not that I need to defend ANYTHING to you. So move along now and take your tears somewhere else. I care not for your feelings in this or any matter. Good day. Just to be clear though, stop your bitching and get off my talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)