User:Clawson/Archives/Talk 2

Request for Arbitration against Copperchair
I've opened a request for arbitration against Copperchair, and I'd appreciate it if you could comment, as you're one of the users I've named as part of Party 2. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

mescaline
no problem. i'll do more when i have time. some are hard to find- if you google syd barrett and mescaline, all you get are out of date mirrors. . .--Heah (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ashida Kim numbers
I won't revert again, but wanted you to at least be aware that the number thing is contentious: the WP style guide only mentions that "many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out" and many places adhere to the "Chicago" style of spelling things out less than 100. Library of Congress. All in all, a very small deal indeed: if this is the only current debate about the infamous Ashida Kim article, we've all come a long way. :) Cheers - Turnstep 01:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair
By the way, just to clear things up, I didn't blank part of his talk page, he did the blanking himself. I did, though, leave the remark that was in its place. I tried to be civil and reasonable with him time and time again as the rule suggests, yet he refused. I probably would have contacted him by email if he listed his email address. The Wookieepedian 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said. The Wookieepedian 04:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My NPOV
I briefly answered your question about the NPOV tag I put on Majestic 12.

You ask "Better yet, would you be willing to propose ways these sections could be better?--" Philip J. Klass blew the lid off MJ-12, and look at what the anti-Klass faction has done to that article. Bubba73 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

French surrender
Wasn't there a book about that? The last of the Pepsicans? -EDM 03:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring
As it is unacceptable and wrong as to ask The Wookieepedian to keep reverting my edits? Copperchair 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA
Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I'll see you around the Star Wars articles. — Phil Welch 03:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

National High Points Page
I am not a vandal and I am determined that my changes to this page, all of which I can substantiate, shall stick. Puncak Jaya 5030m my a***! Viewfinder 03:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion of the United States commemorative coins category
Hi, I invite you to vote against the unnecessary deletion of the United States commemorative coins category


 * I'd like to thank you for voting in this matter! --Kurt 10:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson article
My reason for splitting the article was to reduce the length of the article. It was becoming way to long and a split was well needed. I was also in the process of editing my version of the Michael Jackson article, with more talk about his personal life and controversies. I will save the page and if you have any further disagreements, feel free to make your own edits. But give my version a chance first. Regards, Street walker 07:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

spoilers
OK, I see. That's why I was continuously moving the spoiler warnings above the TOC a while back, as everyone always placed them at the top of the plot summary. But still, you could put the spoiler before the TOC, as the spoiler warning doesn't say: "Everything below this warning contains spoilers." The Wookieepedian 07:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR
You have also made 3 reverts to the Michael Jackson article within 24 hrs. One more and I'll report you. Street walker 08:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackson artice.
Hi

Thanks for the info re:ads on wikipedia.

User:Street walker is at it again at Michael Jackson, and has violated WP:3RR. Can we do something about this guy and his POV pushing? His edits seem to be solely altering Jackson articles to suit his own POV. --KrisW6 08:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect he is getting around the 3rr by logging in anonymously and reverting edits now.

Andrew Jackson rank
All evidence I find online on reliable sites, including both books on my own site, state that coming into the battle of New Orleans, he already had the rank of general. Kendall, usually careful about this type of thing, calls him "General" at the time of the battle; Grace King calls him "Major General" -- and even though she is not so careful as Kendall, I find repeatedly online that he did indeed hold the rank of Major General (if only in the Tennessee militia)

An independent writer at a very careful site on the War of 1812 states "Jackson’s military success in the Red Stick Creek campaign earned him a commission as brigadier general in the regular army"; that campaign was a couple of months after the Battle of New Orleans. Since you're the guy most interested in his rank at the time of the Battle, you may want to address it in the article and get rid of the edit war that way. Bill 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Pat Robertson
You have now reverted Pat Robertson three times. You are hereby warned that further reversion will result in your being reported for violation of WP:3RR policy. Mirror Vax 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi there. I've added your redirect from safety siping to siping. --HappyCamper 01:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My rapid-fire edits...
No probs, I laughed loud after reading your message, "rapid-fire edits", I have to remember that! Since you are working on the Hitler page, I might aswell ask you if you think it is ok to add the info about the documentaries there (I wasn't sure if people would appreciate it, but I decided to be bold since I think the documentaries I mentioned are VERY good, and I have seen quite a few). But don't worry, I have already redirected my rapid-fire somewhere else... Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 02:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Howdy, Chris. Like me, you appear to be keeping a close eye on Jacko; it sorely needs it. It seems a new POV-pushing fan shows up every week, and they don't let up. Your help in keeping this in check is greatly appreciated. I'm going to begin some serious editing and try to whip this article into decent shape; you're welcome to help out that effort as well. Thanks! a ndroid 79  15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page a while back. I just noticed it in the page history. The Wookieepedian 09:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics
Dear WikiProject Numismatics member:

You may have noticed the edits made by user:mom2jandk, and you may have also noticed that I have reverted most of them. I would like to leave this note as an explanation.

mom2jandk is a new user and a clearly enthusiastic member of WikiProject:Numismatics. However, he/she has made several changes (specifically to the categorization scheme) that I reverted for various reasons. Among them, he/she:


 * Moved most of the articles in Category:United States Mint to Category:United States mints. This seems to serve no purpose; the United States Mint is the proper name of a government agency (that you are all no doubt familiar with) and its category was created as a home for articles relating to it.


 * Created Category:United States currency designers. At the moment there does not seem to be anyone in this category who does not already fit into Category:United States Mint engravers, therefore making it a redundant category.


 * Created Category:United States Mint officers. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, while any number of persons employed by the Mint might be correctly referred to as "officers," I've never seen the term used. Secondly, virtually all of the articles in the category would fit under Category:United States Mint engravers or Category:Directors of the United States Mint. Thirdly, even if there are articles about persons who were neither engravers or directors, there would likely not be enough to warrant a subcategory, and therefore such an article should be placed in Category:United States Mint.


 * Created several other categories that either do not fit or fit awkwardly into the categorization scheme.


 * Nominated several categories for deletion, including United States Mint, United States Mint engravers, and others.
 * On the deletion vote for Cat:United States Mint, he seems to be confused as to the purpose of the category; it is, as I said, for articles relating to the government agency known as the United States Mint. There are mints in the United States that are not part of the United States Mint (i.e. the Franklin Mint) and his confusion over this fact seems to be the impetus for the nomination.
 * You might also notice that he nominated cat:Directors of the United States Mint; his explanation is that he broadened the category to "United States Mint officers" so that a Superintendent could be included. The "superintendent of the Mint" to which he referred was Roswell K. Colcord, who was superintendent of the Carson City Mint; there is no such office as "superintendent" for the entire United States Mint (or, if there is, it is distinct from Director of the Mint.)

After reading this fairly lengthy message, you might get the impression that I am attacking either mom2jandk or his/her edits; this is not the case. I have a great deal of admiration for him/her as a new user who is not afraid to jump in and try to improve Wikipedia and the Numismatics project. I hope he/she continues to contribute, and I believe he/she has a great deal to offer. This message is quite long because I wanted to explain the specifics of the categories (many of which, incidentally, were created by me.)

Note that I placed merge tags on most of mom2jandk's categories.

It goes without saying that, if there are any categories that should be altered and/or deleted, by all means make such changes, regardless of whether I or anyone else created them; neither I nor my edits are perfect.

Apologies for using he/she; I assume mom2jandk's user name reflects her role as a mother but I wasn't completely certain.

Thank you all and I look forward to continued work with you in the future. Paul 06:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair
Blocking does not block his user and user talk pages. He can do what he wants there (within limits) as far as I am concerned. He needs to have access to the talk page so he can communicate regarding his arbitration. Fred Bauder 13:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 196.40.38.151 for a week. He is Copperchair, by checkuser. Fred Bauder 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Copperchair
This case has closed. The arbitration committee has banned this user indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. He may be banned from other articles that he disrupts under the Probation order in his case. To be enforced by block. See Requests for arbitration/Copperchair.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm....ya
I didn't edit the Wikipedia... Stargate3216@yahoo.com