User talk:Uncle Dick/Archive 4
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Re: Helen Thomas talk page
It seems that when I set up the MizaBot config, I put the wrong number on the archiving counter, 4 instead of 1. [1] MiszaBot then created an Archive 4 of course, and put one thread it. [2] In an attempt to reverse my error, I reverted MiszaBot's transfer of text to Archive 4, [3] and reset the counter to 1 as Archive 1 was not a very large page.[4] Thus I left a blank page for Archive 4, and the single thread that had been archived was returned to the discussion page for archiving to Archive 1 during MiszaBot's round tomorrow.
Now I see that about 15 minutes after I did all that, you began to fix my original error, though I had already fixed or had nearly fixed it. You had the empty Archive 4 deleted, as well it should have been, then you put its former contents into Archive 2[5] and then reset the counter to 3. [6] I believe the small amount of material in Archive 2 should be in Archive 1, but I have no problem with the fact that an Archive 2 page has been started. However, I do not see the point in starting an Archive 3 already, so I am changing the counter to 2. I hope that is all right with you. I have one request though. Because your changes resulted in duplication of the section called "Official website hacked" in both Archive 2 [7] and the current talk page,[8] would you remove them from one of those pages? Thank you. - KeptSouth (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I deleted the duplicate heading from the talk page. Thanks for the info. I don't have much experience working with archiving bots. Uncle Dick (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit of Helen Thomas didn't make it vague but incorrect. She didn't criticise the Palestinians which is what it said. Fiddler7 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from the terrible grammar used in your revision, Thomas made a lot of other comments in the recent interview that need to be included in any analysis of her statements and the reaction that followed. To quote only a part of the interview, completely out of context, does not maintain a NPOV. The lede needs to remain vague. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I really think this asserts significance. Possible notability. Dlohcierekim 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okie doke. I'll probably list on AfD. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- And now that I've done all I could and come up with only one source, I'd have probably prodded. :(. Cheers, Ans happy editing. Dlohcierekim 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Result was keep! Funny how WP works sometimes. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- And now that I've done all I could and come up with only one source, I'd have probably prodded. :(. Cheers, Ans happy editing. Dlohcierekim 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Adam Snyder page
How do I cite myself as a source? I'm a personal friend of the man posting accurate information, which keeps being erased.
Where are the sources citing the misinformation regarding his wedding? It took place in March 2005, not summer 2006.
Thank you for your help. --Miller 07:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJMiller (talk • contribs)
Although I finally decided to !Vote after your comments, it is true that I had deleted a couple of sources that at the time did not seem reliable (and the hiking book is still only an RS to show that the story appears in various books). Those sources have been replaced (Hiking book, encyclopedia). In the case of the encyclopedia the url originally used showed only a few words, and although I asked the editor who added it several times if he'd read it, who wrote it, etc he declined to respond, strongly indicating he'd only found a book by searching and hadn't read the excerpt. That's been replaced by a readable url and I've emailed the author. You might want to revisit this to see if you still stand by your original !Vote. I find this difficult as I think it's one of those situations where someone's made something up, others have copied it in good faith in published books, etc, and those who have actually researched it and debunked it haven't published (and you can't use searches of JSTOR, etc to say there's nothing published before the book). Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jeffrey Vinokur
You might want to look at this AFD, the author dug up some sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Cindamuse made a decent case toward her having the fanbase that meets WP:ENT, but we also have the problem that proving the fanbase is difficult... as fan clubs themselves are never seen as WP:RS, and one has to then find an RS that at least mentions the fanbase. A major problem is that the wording of WP:ENT actually encourages OR, in that it speaks toward fan base and cult following without actually setting criteria for determination of such. Sigh. What I propose[9][10] is that we agree to a temporary merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig. Reasonable? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Uncle Dick
Here's the statement from the Heisman Trust regarding the 2005 award.
There is no winner for 2005. My edits are correct. I demand credit for first noting the difference, but instead I get warned. What a crock of f****** sh*t! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.96.210 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and leave it per your source, but you really should discuss it on the talk page first and refrain from personal attacks in your edit summaries. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
To Uncle Dick
I created new voices "Global colding" to specify the difference with "Global cooling" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicco3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 216.138.124.75. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. Pilif12p : Yo 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 65.255.177.154. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Abuse response/65.255.177.154 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
User page
Shouldn't you create a user page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from IP. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
regarding your revert at Fouad Awad
Hello. This edit does not seem to revert vandalism. Please be careful. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- My bad. I was trying to fix a capitalization error and I accidentally took out a good revision along with it. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: IFF page "vandalism"
Hey, so I'm trying to take off the template that marks the IFF article as a "new, unreviewed article." The template says it should be removed after someone has reviewed the article, so that's what I'm trying to do. Why am I being called a vandal and how can I remove the template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The template should be removed only after the article is reviewed by someone other than its creator. When that occurs, the editor who reviews it will remove the template. Please do not attempt to remove or edit the template until another editor has reviewed the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't someone else review it? There are comments in the discussion section of the page, and someone wrote on my userpage about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm a little bit suspicious of Hankscorpio's "review." He created an account and offered feedback on your article right around the time you posted your request. He also edited the article's title on the "Request for Feedback" page, almost as if he temporarily forgot who he was and thought he was you! Uncle Dick (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, he does work with me, and I did tell him to review it. How can I get someone else to review it? I submitted a request for it earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Sock puppetry? It's not a false identity. For asking for your help, I get attacked now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not an attack. Wikipedia has a very specific policy against sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. It's just a little bit strange that you have gone to such lengths to remove the standard template for new unreviewed articles. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Such lengths? I asked 1 guy to look at the article. I'm just following what wikipedia says to do. This is my first article, I just want it to be a normal wikipedia article. Why is it being deleted now? IFF is a big name and it's important for other nonprofits to be able to find information about it. Wikipedia is a good way to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to use my best judgment here. It appears that IFF is not a notable organization, but that will ultimately be determined in the AfD process. I may be totally wrong about it. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)