User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 1

READ THIS
hi, i recently created a page called 'the chosen one (novel)' that was deleted and i would like to know why. aparently it was 'blatent advertising' but i feel that that is incorrect. it 'advertises' in it less than the 'harry potter' page advertises the harry potter series. i would like a copy of my page which was deleted, and an explanation as to how the page is advertising a product. more than this i would like to have the page reposted to wikipedia. please reply to this as soon as possible.

--Mikeyv92 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roizen
There was involvement to the point some of us were talking and remarked we were surprised there was no Michael Roizen wikipedia page. I said I could make one, asked my boss and he said go ahead. I had reporters send me the article/sites they thought were the best and I wrote up what you see, which I think is relatively comprehensive and balanced. I'm not embarrassed to say I enjoyed doing it. Cseper (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to your most recent question: I am the online medical editor at The Plain Dealer, which is the daily newspaper in Cleveland. I've written about Michael Roizen in the course of my work - though I cover all kind of topics online. "We" refers to The Plain Dealer staff. I would never delete other opinions or authoritative sources. Cseper (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on Michael Roizen. I have written about him, but my hope is that the Wikipedia community will even out any excessive linking that may come up. I've tried to limit links to my and The Plain Dealer's work to items that needed definitive sourcing under Wikipedia guidelines (controversial items, etc.). I thought the inclusion of controversial items was important, since the previous Michael Roizen page was deleted because it was consider a promotional ad. You'll notice we have multiple sources beyond The Plain Dealer. I will be vigilant to be fair and draw on many sources. Cseper (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What's CalendarWatcher? -- Jim Douglas 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kudos if CW has that many pages on his/her watchlist... -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

St. Sechnaill
Article on above to be written another day, so I don't understand why you deleted it. After all, it was'nt a red link. Is mise, Fergananim 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from Wikipedia
Please do not remove content from pages (such as May 14) unless you con give a valid explanation for why you did so. Generally, it is considered vandalism however I think that your edits are good faith and so I am not marking them as vandalism - just warning you that someone might. If you think something should be removed and you have a good reason, then do it but make sure you say why in your edit summary and on the article's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! - Blood red sandman 09:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did you put Jeffree Star up for speedy deletion? You should put some explantion why in the discussion page at least. I know it's been deleted and recreated many times, and I know he is a controversial person, and would be considered a celebrity.--grejlen - talk 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done this before, and I want to know if there's another reason besides the policy for deleting the article all the time. Star is getting more well-known and he's working on a studio album under the MySpace/Interscope label. I hope this is not an act of censorship, and I'm not saying you or any other administrator who has deleted the article is censoring Wikipedia.--grejlen - talk 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How doesn't it "meet the standards"? There's other information on Star (mainly interviews) besides MySpace if type his name on a search engine.--grejlen - talk 03:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, sorry. I meant to put that on 1890. He's an Indian rebellion leader. Cruciable 02:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

February 27
I was all set to revert that change myself, but first I checked the NYTimes archive -- and it agrees with the edit. I'm going to reinstate something like what the editor said (a mob set fire to the train, it didn't just 'catch on fire'):

February 28, 2002 Fire Started on Train Carrying Hindu Activists Kills 58 By CELIA W. DUGGER

An angry Muslim mob Wednesday morning set fire to a train loaded with Hindu activists who are seeking to build a temple on the site of a demolished mosque, killing 58 people and raising anxiety that the attack would set off a spiral of religious violence.

More than a dozen children were among those burned to death as some in the mob, who had been stoning the coaches, set fire to the train, probably with gasoline from a nearby pump, after it pulled out of a station in the western state of Gujarat, officials and witnesses said.

The train was surrounded by these Muslims, said Raju Bhargava, the district superintendent of police. ''There was heavy stone pelting and a bogie was set on fire. The fire engulfed the whole bogie and spread so fast the people couldn't come out of the compartment.''

-- Jim Douglas 06:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if there's any dispute about the source of the fire, we don't want to include it on the date page; I just changed it to:


 * 2002 - A Muslim mob attacks a train a few minutes after it leaves the Godhra railway station, killing 59 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya; retaliatory riots lead to the death of at least 1000 people, mostly Muslims.

-- Jim Douglas 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on edits by User:Tokus (not vandalism, a text editor problem)
FYI, I just sent this note to User talk:Tokus:
 * I had to revert the edits you made to September 22, September 23, and September 24. Something about the way you edited them destroyed most of the language tags.  Are you possibly using an external editor that doesn't understand non-European languages?

You might want to watch for similar problems. -- Jim Douglas 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

May 14
First, I've done some thinking and I have to agree about the lack of notability on the concert. Sorry. The accident, however, meets a non-official notability standard that almost all of us that moniter/contribute to agree on - A commercial airliner crashing with fatalities is considered noteable. On the issue of smugness, I can only apologise if I came across as smug and assure you it was not in the least my intention. Apologies if I apeared in a manner other than intended, and happy editing! - Blood red sandman 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion - November 15
Hello, just wanted to know why you deleted my addition on November 15 - the launch of the first Fairtrade label Max Havelaar in the Netherlands. The launch was quite significant, as it was the first time a labelled fairtrade product was introduced. Subsequently over 20 different initiatives of the same kind were replicated around the world and labelled Fairtrade sales now amount to over 1.1 billion euros a year. I think it's more noteworthy in the grand scheme of things than stuff like "1989 - Sachin Tendulkar makes his Test cricket debut playing for India against Pakistan" or "1999 - Neopets is founded".... Quebecois1983 20:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Al-Aqsa Intifada reference in September 28
I have no opinion on this edit; I'll just note that the article claims that the specific trigger of the Intifada is disputed. (See February 27, above, for a similarly disputed point.) -- Jim Douglas 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Its not whitewashing it to remove a reference to him, its clearing it of opinion, it would be just as easy for me to blame the failure of the latest round of negotiations at the time as to blame Sharon. Ucscottb4u 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think maybe instead of going back and forth on this repeatedly, we could agree to a alternative? How about "The Al-Aqsa Intifada begins. 4658 people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict"? That number is based on the article, it leaves out POV, and is more a substantive entry.Ucscottb4u 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't happy putting that number in. I dont think it advances my point of view at all, if anything it goes against it. and im honestly trying to keep point of view out. Give me a alternative, dont just insult me. Ucscottb4u 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, Get a grip, This isnt personal. I am honestly looking for an alternative to going back and forth. There must be a way we stop going back and forth with the reverts. I am not trying to whitewash or insert my point of view. I really just want to stop going back and forth. I put this alternative in "The Al-Aqsa Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, begins." it has the name of the conflict as each side sees it, it doesnt give a point of view. Calling it the Al-Aqsa Intifada, implies your suggestion that Sharons visit was the cause, Calling it the Oslo War, gives the Israeli side, where many believe it was a result of the concessions made in the Oslo Accords. Both sides represented, without highlighting one. if you disagree that this is a fair alternative, dont just erase it and put y our old line back, lets figure out some alternative. Please.Ucscottb4u 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. This ought to be easier to solve than the actual Israeli/Palestinian conflict; it's just a headline in an encyclopedia. Here are the basic facts as I understand them:
 * Ariel Sharon did in fact visit the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000
 * Palestinian uprisings and demonstrations started on September 29, 2000
 * The October Uprising started soon thereafter.
 * Are we all agreed that the event that happened on September 28 was in fact Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? That visit is certainly significant to the timeline, regardless of whether it's the ultimate or penultimate trigger, or merely a pretext for violence that would have taken place anyway.  Is there any objection to this phrasing?
 * 2000 - Al-Aqsa Intifada: Arial Sharon visits the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
 * It doesn't claim that the visit triggered the Intifada; it merely says that the visit took place on this date (which is the point of the date pages) and was a significant event in the timeline of the Intifada. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can accept that.Ucscottb4u 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as the fact of the visit -- the point of marking the event to begin with -- is left in. --CalendarWatcher 05:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I think we're done here. Thanks, guys. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot?
Are you a bot? Raja Lon Flattery 14:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I a bot? No.

Are you a vandal? How else to explain the nonsense you added? --CalendarWatcher 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? A vandal? No. There is an explanation for what you call "nonsense" but as I currently don't want to go into a debate I will refrain from expressing it. Raja Lon Flattery 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than the explanation being that you were conducting a test, I can't imagine a satisfactory explanation. Or perhaps you hoped no one would notice the nonsense? --CalendarWatcher 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I already said I don't want to go into a debate and your attempts at guessing are merely futile. Raja Lon Flattery 14:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So my vandal assumption is safe. Good to know. Note that future edits by this account will be watched closely. --CalendarWatcher 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC

"Note that future edits by this account will be watched closely" - What's that suppose to mean? Please reply here. Raja Lon Flattery 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what it says. You added nonsense and declared that you would not explain it. Therefore, your future edits will checked for nonsense. --CalendarWatcher 14:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC

Although I asked you to reply here to keep the discussion clear, you ignored my request. That's fine with me. But you issuing what you've issued on my talk page after we talked that out is irrelevant and questionable. Raja Lon Flattery 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We talked nothing out and I agreed to nothing: any claim or suggestion otherwise is all in your head. My Talk Page is where my messages go, and your Talk Page is where your messages go: this is absolutely standard and is absolutely clear for discussions (your claim notwithstanding), as your acceptance of previous messages on your page indicate. In addition, my warning is entirely relevant, and your probable attempts to sanitise your Talk Page by attempting to redirect comments (or, failing that, to delete them entirely) will be, ultimately, fruitless. --CalendarWatcher 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me if I am vandal. I have said that since I do not want to start a debate I will refrain from expressing and explanation and I have also said your guesses about me being a vandal were futile. You said it was good to know and concluded saying that my contributions will be closely watched. Somewhat confused, I asked what that meant and instead you issued what you've issued on my talk page when there was already no need for it. Hence it was irrelevant. Raja Lon Flattery 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, you have refused to explain why you ignored my request until after I began to move discussions here. Raja Lon Flattery 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You also said my attempts to sanitise my talk page will ultimately be fruitless. Obviously you are not aware of the archiving procedure and I suggest you check it out before making any further erred statements. just a piece of advice. Raja Lon Flattery 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Refer to: User_talk:Raja_Lon_Flattery/archive1 and . Refusing to add an Archive box to User_talk:Raja_Lon_Flattery means that those warnings have been effectively deleted -- they're not accessible to anyone casually looking at the page. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I'm still waiting to tell me where does it say there should be a perm link on my talk page. I take it you could not find it. Raja Lon Flattery 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

October 1
I reviewed the external links earlier, and apparently the act became law on that date. (I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other, though). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll get no argument from me about that. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it's the effective date of the law; it was passed by Congress some months prior. But really, it ought to be in the article before it's on a day-of-the-year page. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you suggested my edits were closely watched so I wanted make sure of that. Raja Lon Flattery 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Trystan Yancy (March 14)
Obviously we have to revert items like that, but I never feel good about it. I found this news report. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

July 19
Hi CalendarWatcher. Can you please explain why you deleted the Father Ted fiction entries? There are many date/year entries in Wikipedia that refer to fictitious events so why delete these in particular? They had been there for a while purporting to be real events, which was wrong, so I moved them into their own section but I don't understand why you deleted them. Adxm 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Adxm, the general policy on those pages is "no fiction". (It's possible that some fictional dates have crept in; I haven't specifically noticed).  Why don't you ask about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year? -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer, Jim; I've added a new section on there. I see it's been mentioned a couple of times before but it doesn't look like it was discussed in depth much. Let's see what happens. Adxm 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Insult
You're insulting me by calling my edits trivial and interesting only for anoraks. Don't be such a... you know what. Raja Lon Flattery 08:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I wasn't thinking about precisionist. Anyways, it doesn't matter. However, calling one's edits trivial and interesting only for anoraks as you did, denotes narrow thinking, disrespect and uncivil behaviour, all of which we ought to avoid and so ought you. Raja Lon Flattery 08:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"ludicrously detailed trivia added to an article only of interest to anoraks"

This is exactly what you said regarding my edits. That "article only of interest to anoraks" was created by me, I "ludicruosly" added that trivia and you know this very well. You could merely stated it was uninteresting in less offensive terms as I and not only me regard this article interesting not only for anoraks. Saying what you said shows disrespect and narrow thinking. Raja Lon Flattery 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless. The fact that the article is only of interest for anoraks is not a true statement but a personal opinion. The fact that I have created it is a true statement. The responsibility is yours to take for what you say or what you let people understand but, obviously, you are attempting to evade it and pass it to others so this is going nowhere. Do not bother to reply. I've removed the discussion and so I will do with any attempts to revive it. You insulted an editor and you're afraid to admit it. End of story. Raja Lon Flattery 10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I too have felt the cruel oppression of CalendarWatcher's insane war against proper wiki-content. He warned me. Kinghy 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

September 28
==

Ok, you're both up to WP:3RR now. That's enough of the revert war for the moment...feel free to take it to Talk:September 28. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

melonfarming
Heh. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Lindsay Lohan from July 2
Why? Am I missing something here? -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake...I was missing something. You were restoring the entry, not deleting it...never mind. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, totally my mistake. Your edit summary was fine; it didn't say 'del'.  Sorry for the confusion. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1999
I could be missing something (God knows it happens), but Koavf's change looks correct to me. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like Justin (Koavf) is diambiguating USA -> United States. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem
No problem. I saw that skinny rocks was vandalizing the page before me. Good luck in fighting vandals! --Nielswik(talk) 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that it falls on the eleventh but...
It also falls on the nearest weekday of the weekend. Check the article yourself--64.121.1.55 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alfonso Faustino
I noticed that you were nominating Alfonso Faustino for speedy deletion and I've changed it to an AFC nomination in Articles for deletion/Alfonso Faustino. --Sbluen 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1987 Reverts, 17th November
Sorry, didnt mean to revert yours back. Trying to do what you already did, just a bit too late. S-man64 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation 3
Why can't the PS3 be added to the November 17 article when Sony's PlayStation 1 as well as Sega's Dreamcast consoles have been added to the September 9 article? If you're adamant about keeping those out, I revised the whole Do NOT line in the Nov. 17 article because saying that "videogame releases" can not be added only implies actual video games, not the consoles themselves. vDub 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

May 15
Hi CW, I was wondering why you deleted "1981 - Len Barker, American baseball pitcher, completes a perfect for the Cleveland Indians against the Toronto Blue Jays." I saw this edit too, and it is verifiable. Thanks for all of your work on keeping the calendar straight! Regards, Accurizer 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam Houston's election
I thought we didn't typically include elections in date articles. How was this particular election especially notable? Rklawton 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

State governors
If this were a U.S.-only date article, then I'd agree fully. It's not, though. And the U.S. has fifty states. Oddly enough, a couple of former state governors are rotting in jail even as I type. It's far too common, and it really lacks any sort of global significance. I certainly don't want to see this sort of detail for the multitude of provinces, cantons, or regions around the world. Rklawton 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of two Disney attraction openings?
The opening of Disney attractions on a date should not be included? --blm07 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Gloria Fuertes from 28 July birth listing
Is there a reason why you deleted Spanish poet Gloria Fuertes from the 28 July birth listing? Or is it just random (=vandalism)? Or maybe is she not important enough *for you*? (in case you actually did any research on her before deleting, which I doubt). Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but your deletion does seem vandalism to me. --RiseRover|talk 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did create a stub on Gloria Fuertes also last night (just a few words, a poet stub category and a link to the Spanish wikipedia) - which also has been deleted, to my astonishment. It's not even in "my contributions" page, so I don't know how to track it and see who deleted it. --RiseRover|talk 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Images in Date Articles
As an active date article contributor/monitor, I thought you might be interested in weighing in on this discussion. Rklawton 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

March 28
My opinion is that there are many people more important than a minor English footballer who deserve more to be on the list. Since my belief that the footballer should be removed is unpopular, I have given up on that idea. The only consistent conclusion therefore is to actually make the effort to add all the people I feel are more deserving of being on the list to the list. Average Earthman 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I conceded my position following your complaint (once you indicated that it was a considered opinion rather than just an automatic revert). I've not attempted to add every single person born on March 28th, just those I've come across so far that I think are of some merit (and in my personal opinion are more interesting than the footballer I deleted and you restored). I don't know if you're used to people you disagree with launching into an edit war, but I am actually trying to avoid one, even if I tend to be a bit begrudging in the edit comments (the porn stars and wrestlers comment wasn't aimed at you, just Wikipedia in general). And I hadn't finished adding people to the list, I ran out of time and stopped. Average Earthman 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from the date project article, any person with a biographical article on Wikipedia is entitled to a birth/death entries in date articles. If this is not the case, please let me know, because I know of no other selection criteria.  Rklawton 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

November 25
I don't understand why you reverted all my changes in the November 25 page. What's notable and what's not? For example: you deleted "Del Yocam was hired as Borland CEO and Chairman", but for 1994 it says: Sony founder Akio Morita announces he will be stepping down as CEO of the company. Besides, there IS an article on Del Yocam, and if he's notable, that date should be notable. You also deleted two marriages, but on November 28 there is this: In Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway pay a £40 bond for their marriage licence.

--Dpapic 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Relax, I don't want to disturb your important and creative work of removing spurious and nonsensical content from the 365 dates in our calendar. But in this world (changed upside down by Sony) there are people (like me) that need explanations. Now I have my explanation. We're all happy.

I'm working on adding births, deaths and events on the date pages, and I'd like to know what's notable and what isn't (at least for you, Officer CalendarWatcher). So, my common sense (the least common of all senses) tells me to look if there is another similar case. I was wondering: the marriage of Benjamin Franklin is notable? I don't know, let's look up if there is another marriage. And I found Shakespeare's. You don't need to tell me who Shakespeare is: do I need to tell you who Franklin is? Hope not.

Anyway, please, don't cease in your labor, because I will be working with dates and still don't know exactly what's notable and what isn't.

Thank you.

--Dpapic 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I'm still a little uncertain why you're deleting these dates. They're clearly labelled in a Fiction section on each day - which although not included in every day - does occur throughout the year. Also much of the information has come from within Wikipedia. Fair enough, at the moment they're all Harry Potter related but the Fiction sections were there and I thought I'd expand them.

Does this mean you are going to go through and delete the fiction section for every day? Can you give me some further guidelines of what to include and what not to? There is a section for fictional timetables I know, but personally I thought it would be interesting to have these on the actual calendar. I feel you disagree.

You may be 'tired of seeing' information like this - but for other people it may be - at least - of interest to see it - or it could be important for them to have this information included. Personally it is the former, just out of interest. I like to see connections like this. Had you not deleted all my posts I would possibly have gone on to expand these fiction sections further - beyond Harry Potter (I just happened to start with this series). I feel it is a little unfair to discount information of this nature. True, the dates might be random - but they have been chosen and the connection is there. Why can the connections not be shown on Wikipedia? (This comes across as a rant - but it's not really. I'm just putting a side of an arguement across).

December 30
Casinos were legalized in Atlantic City by the New Jersey State Legislature in 1976, The first casino to open was Resorts International on May 26, 1978, The second casino to open was the Boardwalk Regency (It later became Caesars) on June 22, 1979 and finally the third casino the Park Place Casino/Hotel (Later became Bally's) opened on December 30, 1979. I hope this clarification help. Misterrick 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

February 8
In this edit you reverted my removal of a reference to the birth of a "Igor Enenberg". This person doesn't exist on Google, so either no one has written about him online (therefore, not notable), or else his name is spelled incorrectly. Richard W.M. Jones 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Piped links
I did not attempt to "mischaracterise" the proposal. And note "proposal", not a guideline or a policy. Also if you look at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music standards there is no discussion of why there should be no piped links.

You also link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 46 which really is not very helpful as it would suggest that years should not be linked at all, which is not what you are doing with your reversions.

'most other the other "year in" articles use piped links' Try the years in science, other years in the United Kingdom, years in poetry, years in film etc etc. Not all but a lot of years in type articles use piped links.

And the other guidelines you link to are all music related, 1968 in the United Kingdom is not a music article.

So when it comes down to it, which makes navigation easier? Clearly we should only makes links that are relevant to the context, but as they are people who are born or died in a particular year in the UK, the corresponding year in the Uk is more relevant than the general year.

Tim! 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All the pages you quote are either proposed guidelines or irrelevant guidelines i.e. for music related articles so do not tell me to try harder. I have given you many examples where this practice is used so unless you wish to go through every single one and get them removed, I see no reason to not do so on UK pages. The fact that many UK pages do not yet exist is slowly being remedied so that is no argument against.


 * Yes I am aware of the meaning analogous. However, the Music and Album guideline which you have repeatedly quoted do not apply as we are not talking about music articles. All other pages you have quoted are not guidelines. Tim! 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tim! 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

filmmaker
You are absolutely right, for I had not seen your edit summary--once I belatedly saw it, I was about to revert it myself. Qy--presumably the entry at IMDB is also fraudulent?--it is often used here as authority. Might it be better to AfD to bring the fraud to people's attention? Thanks, 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline
As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well-watched calendars
Thanks for doing such a great job watching the calendars. I hardly ever have to deal anymore with vandalism (or well-intentioned additions) because you've already done it. Your work is appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to 19 August
Oops, didn't notice that. It was auto-done when I CSDed the page. Cheers. -- slakr \ talk / 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May 25 (Hands Across America)
What is your rationale for reverting my (re-addition) of Hands Across America to the list of events on May 25? It was an event in which several million people participated and it seems helpful to include a reference to it on the date it happened, since it was a one-time event. I would think that something millions of people were actively doing on a single day ought to be included on that day. Obviously you disagree, but I would be interested in your reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiquidInkspot (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I reverted it by accidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZealousSaracen (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CW, thanks for getting back to me. I've got no vested interest in Hands Across America, so I added a "Thoughts?" to the talk page and if anyone cares about it hopefully they'll say so. If none of the millions who participated care, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. LiquidInkspot (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

warnings

 * Stop sending me warnings. i was writing the article that you sent me warnings about. give me a FEW more minutes to finish my work before you power trip again. killkola
 * i was writing the article about the person in question and wanted to check for, then add the birth listing. i saw the criteria and was attempting to meet it by finishing the article. now if i came across as rude or insulting by asking you to give me a few more minutes to finish my article about a very talented math prodigy, i apologize. i don't see how that is rude or insulting but then again im sort lacking in the sympathy department. thats all im saying on this matter and i consider it closed.have a wonderful life and try not to get hit by a bus or anything. killkola —Preceding comment was added at 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL you don't know how to drop something, take a joke or accept an apology... grow up.. i apologized and tried to drop it, and i tried to be flippant to show no hard feelings. why don't you do the same? or don't, i could care less. just stop sending me messages. i finished my article and now im tired so lemme alone please and i promise ill never post on your turf again. killkola —Preceding comment was added at 10:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

hahaha thanks for the info i spelled the middle and last name wrong 4 times now

stalker dude knock it off Killkola (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask...?
Might I ask why you deleted my edit on April 20?

Hankie1016 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry should explain (but where)?
Bit complicated. The Schools Wikipedia takes selected versions of articles with suitable content for children. In general we take article version numbers which volunteers have contributed here and run a clean up script here to incorporate all the issues raised by them at the first here. The years pages are problematic because they have a lot of graffiti etc in but also serial paedophile murders etc. I have generally just corrected the graffiti and errors turned up by the volunteer but the inappropriate content is problematic. We could write a script to exclude lines from the pages, but it would have to be a one off script for year pages. However it is much quicker (I thought) to edit and remove the inappropriate content, self revert to preserve the article and use the version number in the middle to generate a child-friendly form. If you have an issue with this then I would understand and we could go the longer route. I am about to go off line for a few hours but will explain more later. --BozMo talk 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably should add we are a kind of officially blessed project. See or Wikipedia_CD_Selection --BozMo talk 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way if you felt like going through 1900-1950 (which is the only recent period no one has checked yet, albeit faults haven't been corrected yet) and tidy up the articles it would speed things up for me. I will do the change self revert on 1950-1983 then 1995-2008 then stop ok.

May 25, Nerd Pride Day
Please see the talk page, discuss, and reach consensus before reverting further. TJRC (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

August 23
Hi. I noticed that you undid my edit of August 23 with the comment "see reference". Unfortunately I can't find any applicable reference. Can you provide a link to it please? As I pointed out on Talk:August 23 the 1833 date is clearly wrong and should be removed. Do you have a source that suggests otherwise? Regards, Road Wizard (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link. The date in that article was unreferenced, so I have amended it with a citation. Unless you have any further objections I would suggest removal of the incorrect date from August 23 as well. Road Wizard (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Names
Please consider adding a comment here. Thanks David in DC (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Disasters
I've also responded on my own talk page, but again, thanks for letting me know about the return of that unsourced-disaster person. Since he is still being disruptive and (since he's currently on a 72-hour block) is in violation of WP:SOCK, I've referred him to administration. Thanks for catching that! Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice, but 219.23.5.48 returned from a three-day block only to continue the disruptive editing, and then decided to forge comments (now reverted) by you on his own talk page. Earned himself a three-month block this time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of interest I decided to look at that talk page and I noticed that there is still one comment falsely listed in your name. Unfortunately the page has been protected so I cant remove the signature myself. Road Wizard (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Time
Have you considered joining WikiProject Time? Although I certainly don't speak for everyone in it, I think it's safe bet to say that we'd be glad to have you as a member. You'd also get a monthly time-article-related newsletter on your talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

MAY 25 Celtic F.C. Europeon Cup Win 1967
I tried to add Celtic F.C. 1967 European Champions Cup win under "Events", which I think is appropriate, but it has been removed several times.

My entry: 1967 – Celtic F.C. become the first northern European team to win the European Champions Cup, which had previously been the preserve of Italian, Portuguese and Spanish clubs by beating F.C. Internazionale Milano 2 – 1.

I see an equivalent event entry for: 1968 - Manchester United win the European Cup, the first English Club to do so.' ''Italic text'

Celtic F.C.’s 1967 European Cup win is a greater and more notable achievement than Manchester United’s 1968 win that is already listed in the calendar for MAY 29.

First, I was informed by CalendarWatcher that “that's REALLY stretching notability”.

Second, that “it's a ridiculously artificial distinction made in order to claim some sort of distinction”.

Third, that “you've drawn a purely artificial line ('first northern European club'? Can't bring yourself to say 'British', can you?) claim a distinction of no real import)”.

In response let me point out that this is a notable sports achievement listed in the Events of 1967 Wikipedia page, and the term “first northern European team” is a quote taken from both the Celtic F.C. and May 1967 Wikipedia pages.

Northern Europe is a destinct area as defined by the United Nations and descibed in Wikipedia as is Eastern Europe and Southern Europe.

Celtic’s achievement went far beyond the British isles.

Irl32csc (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, independence of Norway is a significant event
Are you nuts? You think the referendum that led to the independence of Norway isn't significant enough to warrant a mention on the date page? That's so funny. If you really think that's a defensible position, you should probably also remove the reference to the accession of Haakon VII on November 18 of that year. Or you could take a deep breath and return the referendum mention, which is indeed also mentioned in the History of Norway article. Give that article a read and maybe you'll come around. So you think you would have removed that if anyone but me had added it? You're a hoot!Jbening (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1955
Hi. Instead of rushing into conclusions, try to see if you are right or not. On what basis you have concluded that "EOKA starts the armed struggle aiming to the incorporation of Cyprus to Greece." is a politically biased sentence. Have you studied the Cyprus conflict? Have you even clicked the article about EOKA to get more information? No? Well, there you also have "politically biased" information that are crying for you, an expert on the Cyprus issue, to correct them. And, please inform yourselve better, erasing biased information is everybody's job, not mine not yours. You are really diletant, you know. But, I'll not fight with you on this. It is not an important issue for me. I didn't add the information, I only add the link on EOKA. But, you are the master, and I am politically ignorant. He, he, he (Zdravko mk (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

So much ignorance and arrogance is very bad combination. You have a problem with the attitute, boy. Here you have several quotations from the article about EOKA:

1) "EOKA (Εθνική Οργάνωσις Κυπρίων Αγωνιστών, Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston (Greek for National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters)) was a Greek Cypriot nationalist organisation that fought for the expulsion of British troops from the island, for self-determination and for union with Greece."

2) "Its military campaign began on April 1, 1955 and while its main target was the British military, the EOKA also targeted civilian installations on the island as well as assassinating pro-British Cypriots, informants, Taksim (Turkish Cypriot supporters of partition), and members of the Turkish Cypriot insurgent organisation, the Turkish Resistance Organization."

I advice you to stop blaming the others about political bias and think how political biased and arrogant you are. And insert the data about EOKA rebellion in political neutral terms, as you think it is fit. But, don't be counterproductive, erasing important dates. Let me remind you that your user name is CalendarWatcher, not OrwellianBastard. (Zdravko mk (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Zdravko: CalendarWatcher was correct to remove that entry, as it is an unsourced statement about which of two sides initiated a conflict. Such a statement is not immune to debate. All conflicts involve various finger-pointing by various parties involved. If you want to include the event, then you need to phrase it in a NPOV way, which may simply mean citing a neutral source (if such a thing can be found). As for the last sentence of the foregoing entry...you might want to give WP:CIV a read in your spare time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability of dates
Thanks for pointing me to those policy pages, but I was of course already aware of them. I've been around here for some time and made both constructive and pruning edits to a wide variety of articles. I'm pretty sure I adhered to WP:3RR in my edits yesterday--or did my disagreement with you over Norway qualify as part of the same set of reverts as the disagreement over the concert, merely because it was the same article? Anyway, my intention was to adhere to 3RR.

As to the Norway referendum, I'm going to admit fault (but not hysteria). I had been thinking that it was a rough equivalent to our July 4 (referendum=declaration), but it appears they celebrate May 17, so I'm not sure how important a Norwegian would consider August 13. But my point in bringing up that and the Gdynia arrival was not to question their legitimacy but to argue that Mufka's simplistic "is there a page for the event" criterion would exclude lots of notable events. My hope was that he would then offer a more thoughtful argument for exclusion of the Grateful Dead concert, but that never materialized once other exclusionists piled on.

As to the Other Stuff Exists article, please note the text in bold below:


 * In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales.


 * When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Your simplistic "if not date page then not year page" criterion would probably cause you to (IMO improperly) delete over half of the entries on WP year pages. That alone persuades me that your reasoning is off-base, but let me offer a more articulate argument. A date page includes events from throughout history, and so one could justifiably apply as a standard the notability of the event in the context of human history in general. But a year page includes events only from that year. Thus, thus notability criterion should be in relation to the zeitgeist of that year, justifying the inclusion of events that may be ephemeral in a larger context but notable in the context of that particular time. Given the narrow focus of the existing date-of-year pages, I grant that mention even of the single most notable concert of a notable popular music group that is notable especially for concertizing may be out of place there. But such an event could nevertheless merit inclusion in the page for the year when the concert took place. I'm therefore inclined to re-add it, but I'll wait to hear your reply to my reasoning.

And now that we've antagonized each other, I wonder if I could engage you and ask for your assistance on the larger question of notability in calendar pages. Among WP's many virtues IMO is the kaleidoscopic range of topics considered--the vast majority of which would never find their way into a traditional encyclopedia. That diversity makes it a far more interesting and useful resource than it would be if it restricted its ambit to that of traditional encyclopedias. (BTW, it is in this respect more like the late 18th century editions of the Britannica, which included articles on practical matters like agriculture and shooting. And FWIW, I'm the chair of a Biology department in a respected university, so my interests do encompass the respectable as well as the populist.)

But that marvelous diversity is largely absent from the calendar pages. As I said in an earlier comment, I think it's a scandal that the August 13 page, for example, has fewer than 30 events, and I hypothetically attribute that to the exclusionist bent of calendar watchers like yourself. I'm guessing that the tireless work you folks have to do in reverting obvious vandalism predisposes you to removing events and therefore adopting an exclusionist frame of mind.

So my question is: has this issue already been hashed out in the context of calendar pages, and if so could you point me to that discussion? If not, how could I best engage the sub-community of calendar watchers such as yourself, to advocate for a broader standard of historical notability? I've just made a cursory search for generalized talk pages on calendar issues without success. I'm asking you because you're more likely to know of such a forum offhand. And please don't think I'm doing all this just to get the Grateful Dead mention in there. I would cheerfully drop that issue if I could engage people effectively on the larger issue. You may have noticed my additions of a number of other key events in (baby-boomer) popular culture to other calendar pages that I was surprised to find weren't already noted. Thanks in advance! Jbening (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you busy right now but intend to reply to me, or do you disdain to do so? I've found WP:DOY, but I'd value your thoughts on the other issues I raised. Jbening (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, you wrote: As you are not my supervisor, your attempts to issue orders will be ignored.
 * What orders? I asked a question.


 * You wrote: I scanned your rather prolix statement, and, frankly, it's not worth the bother--or my time--to respond in full.
 * I see now that it was foolish of me to look for constructive engagement from you, of all people. Rest assured that it will not happen again.


 * You wrote: Responding to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument rebuttal by simply rephrasing your original argument--as you did when you claimed that half of the entries on the date and year pages would require deletion if you didn't get your way--rather misses the point entirely.
 * A cursory glance at what I wrote above will reveal that you ignored all but the first sentence of the paragraph in question.


 * You wrote: If an event has no article linked to it, how on Earth is it verifiable? Wikipedia isn't intended to be a faith-based encylopaedia. If you feel otherwise, you need to get consensus to change some fundamental policies.
 * See Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. And many of the other events listed on DOY pages are verifiable only from mentions in other articles rather than from articles devoted exclusively to the event in question. There's nothing faith-based about that. But as I said earlier, I'm not committed to that particular event.


 * You wrote: ''As for your 'You may have noticed my additions of a number of other key events in (baby-boomer) popular culture...', you might have noticed that no-one has removed those, yet has removed the trivial Grateful Dead reference. There's a lesson there, and perhaps you'll see it.
 * It appears that in your world, everyone is an idiot except you. What fun that must be.


 * I say all of the above not because I'm particularly interested in hearing from you again, but because I think it may help other wikipedians who have the misfortune of interacting with you to see from this example that they are not alone in receiving high-handed and unconstructive replies from you. Jbening (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User and User talk pages protected
Hi CalendarWatcher. Following the recent spate of childish vandalism to your user and talk pages, I have protected them to prevent further abuse. Best, Gwernol 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad I could help. Not sure exactly what caused this little outburst, I'm sure someone was trying to add "Jason is the coolest kid evar and will be the master of the universe" or similar to a date article somewhere... sigh... Best, Gwernol

Pardon me?
I do not know who you are, nor do i know what article about a math prodigy? you are talking about. RE: Arthasastra (sp?), Ariel Arora Twaddle(sp?). I just got done reviewing my edit logs, I'm not too entirely sure what is going on here but i think (possibly) that my roommate is playing games with you. I live in the state of California, however i have been in the state Indiana for the last 2 weeks caring for my mother. I have not been on wikipedia for quite some time. I have not as of yet written any articles for Wikipedia, althoughi have done a fair amount of editing. I will do my best to find out what has gone on while I was gone. But from the looks of my house, the messages you have left, and several comments left on others talk pages by "me" this has been going on a little longer than 2 weeks. As i am a single working father of three I did not in the past take my privacy, computer or otherwise very seriously. Obviously that was a mistake. As soon as i get done here I will change my password on my computer wiki account and possibly install some locks. If you would like I will talk to my roommate and his friends about apologizing to you and if I have to say it I offer my apologies too. If any further editing problems come up related to me please feel free to leave me a message. I can assure you that I am neither an online vandal nor a malicious editor. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and giving me a chance to respond in kind. -Chris Killkola (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ThanksKillkola (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1967
I just noticed you reverted an edit and referred to it as vandalism. You might want to review the definition of vandalism. In the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia policy on vadalism it says:
 * Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Adding Kurt Cobain's name to the event section on the correct date and year appears to be a misplaced good faith edit. Jons63 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for pointing out a mistake I had noticed. Jons63 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah whatever Jons63 (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

....
Reply to what I said before,

I made that edit and it is NOT utterly pointless because in 1889 it was Easter Sunday, which is a considered a holiday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankie1016 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Easter Sunday occurs twice a year (western & eastern calendars) every year and has been doing so for much of the last 2000 years. Are you seriously suggesting adding around 3000 entries for Easter Sunday? Road Wizard (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1 July
Can you explain me signification of lieutenant colonel Arthur Borton and why is he important for wiki ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention is add all important South Slavs to Calendar.
 * To evade future problems tell me what is wrong with:

"*1928 - Killing of Stjepan Radić and other Croat members of Yugoslav parliament during Assembly session." ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This event is trigger for Alexander dictatorship. See article Alexander I of Yugoslavia--Rjecina (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * let me see you want to say that Barbu Catargiu assasination is important but this is not ?
 * In reality I can find many similar examples (June 19 race riots in Texas) ....--Rjecina (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo
You reverted a recent change to a biography by Cleo123. That user performed the same action here. The user is under the impression that WP:CHILD deals with biographies, which it does not, and that biographies aren't allowed to have "personal" data, which births are supposed to be included. The user's interpretations of BLP is being discussed here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Ottava Rima, has been banned from participating in FAC discussions for disruptive behavior connected to his unusual and inappropriate misinterpretations of policy. Ottava has also been cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I suppose that this malicious attempt to stalk clearly well intentioned edits says all that needs to be said. Cleo123 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By "banned" the above user means voluntarily taking a break for two and a half months, then yes. But the above user did not mean that at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaghan Jette Martin
I reverted your edit because I believe that both of the policies I cited do, in fact, apply in this case. WP:BLP specifically states:
 * ''"Privacy of personal information
 * Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.''"

The minor in question does not appear to be widely notable and her DOB has not been widely published. More importantly, the private information may well have been posted by a WP:CHILD. Cleo123 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the editor above seems to be acting on the basis of his/her own clearly faulty definition of notablity, with her use of the phrase "widely notable", which so far as I can tell is original to that editor. And evidently the fact of the birthday being included in her Imdb page here doesn't qualify to that editor as being "widely published", which I think shows the editor engaged in a rather pronounced effort to say whatever s/he has to to defend their previous actions. That editor has earlier stated that s/he thought something should have to have "national notability", another undefined phrase, for inclusion, clearly indicating a rather pronounced misunderstanding of WP:NOTABILITY. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello CalendarWatcher, i think your the right person to answer my kind of question. I would just like to ask on wikipedia every single article about every day of the year has an intro paragraph telling us how many days left in the calender, the previous day etc. Does this intro paragraph come from a magic word from the Wikimedia software as in displaying will give the intended information? I was just interested thats all.

Also i have seen you have been doing a lot of 'undoing' in your times here on the wiki, why dont you ask for rollback to make your life easier? It will certainly help you:P Thanks  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism
I didn't vandalize the page 2007. I just stated an event. There was some one who went to Sinbad (actor) and changed it to claim he died. I did not say that Sinbad died. As far as I know, he is still alive and well. I even clearly said that the claim was not true. Footballfan190 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey CalendarWatcher, just a heads up to let you know this is currently on WP:AN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)