User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 5


 * Archive 1 - moved 12 July 2008
 * Archive 2 - moved 26 October 2008
 * Archive 3 - moved 22 January 2009
 * Archive 4 - moved 1 May 2010

Query about history page
I note the first activity on this account since the matter of who is operating it was raised, last year.

I lack the computer expertise to know how and why the history page has been blanked up until this activity today. Could whoever is operating this account please explain? Tony  (talk)  08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your False and Insulting Accusation
That's a pretty retarded response you sent to my talk page! I don't have something stupid like what you called a "Crusade Against Common..." (but wrong) "... Usage." Take your insulting responses to someone who gives a crap what you say.

Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).


 * Calendar watcher, I don't have something stupid like what you called a "Crusade Against Common..." (but wrong) "... Usage." Take your insulting responses to someone who gives a crap what you say.

Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do). Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Then you said something on my page about supposed "civility.")

Haha, cw, look who's talking about civility! Looks like you need to learn a lesson yourself, as we see others saying about YOU! I've seen those on your page. You know you need it. Next, no, you're wrong about what you think was my "misunderstanding" about the word "insult." That "seb" guy INSULTED me by saying something stupidly sarcastic like, "Haha, it gets better every time." You know that's an insult when it's retardedly laughing at something I said. So no, it was NOT a "correction." YOU please make a note of THAT. Finally, I have a RIGHT to remove section headers from MY talk page. YOU are NOT the "boss" of what someone does here, especially with their OWN talk page!

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous account(s)?
Hi CalendarWatcher. During your first days of editing on WP it is clear you were familiar with concepts such as: notability, over-linking, and using monobook.js. You also displayed extraordinary speed and facility in both editing articles, and in taking other editors to task concerning their edits (reverts, warnings, etc.). Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia? Thanks for your help in this matter. HWV258 . 09:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. In case you think I'm just trying to annoy you, here's a few (of many) interesting edits...
 * On 6 Oct 2006 Arthur Rubin made an edit to the "May 11" article. Seven days earlier (On 29 Sep 2006) you made an edit to the same article.
 * On 28 Nov 2006 Arthur Rubin made an edit to the "Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories" article. Six days earlier (on 22 Nov 2006) you made an edit to the "Talk:September 11 attacks#CONSPIRACY THEORIES" article.
 * At Talk:2012/Archive_2 Arthur Rubin closely aligned the two accounts by agreeing with yourself.
 * Up until mid-October 2009, there were 68 instances of Arthur Rubin reverting someone else's edit to a version created by yourself.
 * Up until mid-October 2009, there were 34 instances of yourself reverting someone else's edit to a version created by Arthur Rubin.
 * Up until mid-October 2009, there were 151 instances where Arthur Rubin and yourself edited the same article on the same day. Examples include: 2009 in music—both edited on 2009-02-26; User_Talk:64.193.88.7—both edited on 2008-09-05 (with edits within two minutes of each other); 1991—both edited on 2008-12-18 (with edits within one minute of each other!).
 * At least 279 pages which both you and Arthur Rubin have edited at some point in time.
 * The edit summary associated with an edit of Arthur Rubin's of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher" is particularly curious.
 * Could you please explain the relationship between the CalendarWatcher and Arthur Rubin accounts? Are you friends? I'll explain why I'm so interested when you finally provide an answer to my original question. Thanks for helping out with this issue. HWV258 . 11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility complaint posted at ANI
Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612

I must ask you to observe WP:CIVILITY to all editors. Tony  (talk)  12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► ballotbox ─╢ 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)
Hi, CalendarWatcher. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer  Waters  09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ServiceMagic
FYI, it has been nominated for deletion (3rd attempt). See link on article page. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smoluk
I have restored Adam Smoluk since it's prod was objected to. I recommend taking the article to Afd if you still believe it to be non-notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

E.cassimatis
Hello

Thanks for this. I am confused, this is a list of social networks and Goodwizz should be among the list? I have provided references and articles which demonstrate that this is a known social network. Why should not Goodwizz be on a list of hundreds of social networks? E.cassimatis (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Foodland (film)
Hi. You did not finish Step III of the nomination for this, so that it was never transcluded in the daily log and has not been seen by those who scan those logs. I guess those who have commented came to it via the film deletion sorting list. I have put it into today's log, marked as a relist but with a note of what happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________       Note to Calendar Watcher, April 2nd, 2011, from Malachy McGreevy

Calendar Watcher: Greetings. I am Malachy McGreevy. I am writing to ask you why you deleted Malachy McGreevy from the list of 1966 births, along with the link to copyrighted material shared freely on creative commons. I am the inventor of the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System. I happen to feel that the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System is a significan leap of consiousness for humanity. From before the existance of hominids, wildfire has existed on earth. It pre-exists humanity. Therefore, we as a species evolved subject to wildfire. As a matter of fact, every species in existance on the face of the terrestrial earth has evolved subject to wildfire. This is the first claim made that wildfire can and will be bounded and demarcated. This isn't science fiction. For the first time in the history of the existence of mankind on earth, humanity will no longer be subject to wildfire; quite the opposite. Mankind can now determine where wildfire will be allowed and will not be allowed to occur. This is big stuff. This is an evolution of science. This is the reason that I feel inclusion of Malachy McGreevy in the wikipedia 1966 list of births is legitimate and worthy. There are many pop stars and athletes on there, I feel this is at least as important and noteworthy as their birth dates too. Very truly yours, Malachymcgreevy (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachymcgreevy (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

May 25th 1967 European Cup win
OK, since you seem reluctant to explain your persistent removal of the Celtic F.C. European Cup win in 1967 beyond "IT'S REDICULOUSLY TRIVIAL!!1!" or something to that effect, I'll offer you the opportunity to explain here why you think it to be trivial. The European Cup win in 1967 is a significant event for hundreds of thousands of people across the world, perhaps even millions. It is defiantly significant in Europe as they are the first Northern European team to win the competition which is the most prestigious prize in club football, a sport which is very important to European culture. It has even been argued that the European Cup win in 1967 represents a cultural event for the hundreds of thousands of Irish Catholic immigrants in Scotland; a group who are traditionally victims of institutional discrimination. Just because it's not a notable event to you does not mean it's notable to no-one. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD question
Given that the text in is dated July 2010, which postdates the addition of the same words to Hiroaki Yura, there's a chance we have a reverse copyvio, so I declined the CSD, pending discussion with you.

If you specifically looked into this, and see why I am wrong, please let me know.

Otherwise, I suggest posting to Copyright problems. If you do not want to, let me know and I will.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the dates, you bring up a good point that the site in question was concerning 2002 finalists. I don't know why the particular entry is dated July 2010. I hadn't done a Google search, and that may resolve it one way or the other. <y sole point is that CSD G12 is for unambiguous situations, and I think there are enough questions that it should go through a review by the experts at Copyright problems. Do you agree, or are you convinced it is unambiguous? If you think it is unambiguous, you can retag, but I'll let someone else delete, as I'm not yet convinced. If you think it is worth posting at Copyright problems, let me know whether you plan to, if not, I will. (I did read your response, but my head isn't clear yet, so I wasn't sure what you were proposing as a next step.)--  SPhilbrick  T  12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP
User Fasttimes68 seems a bit too obsessed with removing content about Stephanie Adams both in the article about her as well as any topic on Wikipedia that mentiones her. He is also being considered for a topic ban. Take a look at his talk page and contributions, and you will see that the Stephanie Adams page will continue to be a heated topic until something is done about the petty desire to remove the school she went to and other nonsense. Bowwowbow (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you blank out the whole page of Nelly (disambiguation)?
I was on anti-vandalism patrol and came upon the Nelly (disambiguation) page using STiki. Why did you blank out the whole page? Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry CalenderWatcher, There must have been a problem with either me or STiki because the page is ok now. Thanks. also, feel free to delate this section. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment at Articles for deletion/Rape and Pregnancy
Thank you for restoring my comment. Seb az86556 has reported me at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do you mind commenting there about this, since it partially involves you? 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Templeton Awards for years
It's hardly a notable award in the field of world history, is it? Most people have never even heard of it. We can't list everything - Nobel prizes maybe, but what next? The MTV award for best international newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with other prizes
A comparison can be drawn with the official websites of some other awards. Here are the ranks, from Alexa: nobelprize.org 29,000 oscars.org 88,000 grammy.com 100,000 pulitzer.org 194,000 googlelunarxprize.org 303,000 themanbookerprize.com 358,000 heritagehealthprize.com 408,000 japanprize.jp 418,000 zayedfutureenergyprize.com 613,000 pritzkerprize.com 764,000 loebner.net 1,161,000 mercuryprize.com 1,134,000 worldfoodprize.org 1,440,000 polarmusicprize.org 1,553,000 goldmanprize.org 1,600,000 rightlivelihood.org 1,656,000 orangeprize.co.uk 1,971,000 templetonprize.org 4,096,445

(I use Alexa just because that polls more people - the pageviews from wikipedia are much the same, in the last 90 days, Templeton has 11,833 views, vs 142,872 for the Grammys, 234,516 for Nobel and 426,327 for the Oscars. Indeed, it's absolutely staggering that on some days the Category:Templeton_Prize_laureates does not get a single view!)

As can be seen, public interest in the Templeton prize is not even close to any of the other awards. So again, if we're not going to include any of the others, the Templeton has no place in such a major page as 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But again, it's just not notable. The above shows that people are simply not visiting the website, either because they don't care about the award (because it's unimportant), or because they don't know about it (because it's not notable and receives no coverage). That's why the Templeton website is so important, because this event does not get any TV or print reports. Please feel free to supply some quantitative information that disproves this.

Want another example? Look up Jennifer Jones, Yann Martel, Albert Einstein, John Updike or Gloria Estefan. All five articles mention in the lead paragraph the fact that the person has won an award (a different award in each case). It's a major achievement of their career - sometimes even being nominated can be a defining moment. Look up Billy Graham or Michał Heller or Nikkyō Niwano or Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan or Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, to pick some random examples, and the Templeton award is either not mentioned, or occurs right towards the bottom of the article in a minor subsection about their career. You see the point I'm making? It's just not in the least bit important who won the Templeton award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice on the other talk page you basically make no comment at all apart from banging on about "whingeing". You need to argue your case - either put up or shut up. One of the key arguments to consider here is that there are just so many awards each year, that wikipedia cannot list them all, and needs to focus on the important ones. Unfortunately this is not one of them.


 * Things are getting silly with your edit war. What should be included on a year page should be things of great importance in the context of world history. Just because a prize has been awarded in 1980, it does not mean we need a full account on the year page, otherwise before you know it, the 1980 page (and all the others) would be surpassing the maximum allowed page length. Clearly Nobel prizes are the exception to this, but it's silly to think that should open the floodgates to everything.


 * If you think that it's important that a person won an award, by all means add it to the Templeton Award page. Even add it to that person's article (and then we can decide if the award itself is notable enough or not). But stop trying to put it on the same level as Nobel Prize winners, boxing world champions (which themselves are not notable enough in this context to be included), or Oscar winners (also not included), etc, because it's demonstrably not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1910, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomás Blanco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1907
Hi, how about some discussion over the 1907 article rather than just reverting each other. Keith D (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- S M S  Talk 04:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrews Sisters
OK. Where do I make the case? Here's the case:

Orville Wright - listed as born on August 19, 1871; died on January 30, 1948. No individual page Wilbur Wright - listed as born on April 16, 1867; died on May 30, 1912. No individual page Joel Coen - listed as born on November 29, 1954. No individual page Ethan Coen - listed as born on September 21, 1957. No individual page Lana Wachowski - listed as born on June 21, 1965. No individual page Andy Wachowski - listed as born on December 29, 1967. No individual page

I'm sure I can find more, if you'd like. As for whether or not the Andrews Sisters are notable enough... seriously? -- JCaesar (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: If it's your argument that they don't have pages devoted solely to themselves, that is only to reduce clutter. There's no need for separate pages for Orville and Wilbur Wright, Ethan and Joel Coen, Lana and Andy Wachowski and LaVerne, Maxene and Patty Andrews because they did all their (all undeniably notable) work together. If I can't create individual pages for them because that's clutter, and I can't list their individual births and deaths because they don't have individual pages, then I think I've figured out where to make my case: at the talk page for Joseph Heller, because I'm about to make a strong case that he is the first person in history to be laughing hysterically in his grave, original research be damned. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And no, I'm not asking to make those edits. All of those edits had already been made with the exception of a few of the Andrews Sisters edits. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found another one: Auguste Lumière, born October 19, 1862, died April 10, 1954, and Louis Lumière, born October 5, 1864, died June 6, 1948. I ain't askin' to make these changes. They'un was like it when I done found 'em. The point is the "individual page only" rule is meant to eliminate non-notable edits, which I understand. We're not talking about non-notable edits. We're talking about the inventors of the motion picture camera and the airplane, the Oscar-winning writer-directors of Fargo and No Country for Old Men, the writer-directors of the National Film Registry-inducted The Matrix and the top-selling female musical act of the entire first half of the 20th century. They may have worked as duos or trios, but they're plenty notable by any definition. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I didn't add any of those. I didn't add the Andrews Sisters, or the Grimm Brothers, or the Coen Brothers, or the Wachowskis, or the Wright Brothers, or the Lumière Brothers, or the McGuire Sisters. I completely understand the concept behind the rule of "no individual pages." But you have to understand something in return: There are a lot of people in the world who don't want to contribute to Wikipedia. Totally don't want to. I know, because I was one of them for years. This site has very much gone from "add information if you can find it" to "you will be rule-lawyered to death if you try." There are other sites that have gotten even worse. Ironically, TV Tropes has gone straight into the rule-lawyer sewer. I have only ever made edits in good faith, and I have only ever made cases for my edits in my comments, but it sincerely seems to me, having used this site for 10 years, that the only rule which has been completely forgotten by the most frequent users is the "Ignore All Rules" rule. I completely get why you wouldn't want to have One Direction fans editing birthdates over and over -- totally. We're not talking about One Direction. We're talking about the Grimm Brothers and the Lumière Brothers and the Wright Brothers and the Andrews Sisters and the McGuire Sisters and the Coen Brothers and the Wachowskis. And if you want to know why I'm badgering somebody, it's because when I get badgered, I get annoyed, too, and I won't become uncivil, but I will respond in kind. -- JCaesar (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't strawmanning. Strawmanning is when you place unreasonable arguments in an opponent's mouth. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by making the one logical argument that could possibly be made. Nor was I edit warring. I provided reasons for all reversions and took all of them to people's talk pages. But yeah. I'll go to that page you linked, and if the Wikipedia community comes to a consensus that the Wright Brothers aren't notable enough, I will for sure stop editing this site with the good faith, cited sources I've used all along, because "a joke" won't even begin to describe it. But I will edit the catch-22 page on my way out the door, because boy howdy. -- JCaesar (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. After I had been pushed and had had no response to my talk page edits - where I tried to sort this out rationally - but saw edits made to disrupt Wikipedia with no attempt to discuss this rationally, I responded in kind. Except I didn't really respond in kind, because I didn't edit any pages other than talk pages. That's not disrupting Wikipedia. That's disrupting that user. There's a difference, see. -- JCaesar (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

September 11
Which Virginia Madsen entry should be in? We can't exactly say that Virginia Madsen was born on September 11 1961 AND September 11 1963. --Golbez (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Fergus Henderson (computer scientist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fergus Henderson (computer scientist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fergus Henderson (computer scientist)& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)