User:E. Ripley/archive3

I move away from the microphone to breathe. ..
Some stay dry and others feel the pain :( &mdash; e. ripley\talk 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

YES YOU KNOW IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.241.22 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: BLP tag on Noor Einey
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the BLP tag you placed at this article has been removed. It appears the article is not a BLP, but about a movie. Cleanup tags have been applied to it, and it will be listed for copyediting. Thanks for your understanding. Barking Fish  Talk to me | My contributions 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, it was my mistake. Thanks for taking the time to let me know, very decent of you. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it...
Looks like both of us AFD'd diabetes control at the same time, and I just barely won! (Do I get a medal?) Anyway, I removed your AFD and moved the content to mine: Articles for deletion/Diabetes control. Enjoy. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I didn't look at the one listed as first to see what date it was from, glad you caught that. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and....
does the E. stand for Ellen? :) Just wanted to say thanks for this. Kate sometimes takes a lot of eyes to keep its Good Article status. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rags and Leathers Program
Sorry, didn't mean for my edit to be vandalism. Can you please add the tag at the top of the page that explains that references need to be added to the article. Thanks, and sorry again. Rags and Leathers Program —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.125.57 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for the introduction and clarification :) --Brinchj (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction
I'm afraid you're wrong to say, as you did on HJ Mitchell's talk page, that nothing has been done to improve the article. I've spent a lot of time over the last week to rewrite and expand it considerably in my userspace - see User:ChrisO/Goldstone - to tackle some of the outstanding issues. I'm probably the only editor involved with the article to have done any significant work on it since it was protected. As such, your suggestion to extend the article protection was based on an erroneous assumption. I'd appreciate it if you could withdraw your objection on HJ's talk page to the article being unprotected. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Chris, I'm sorry if I offended you -- I think you perhaps just misunderstood me, or I wasn't entirely clear. However, my opinion remains the same, and I've elaborated on it just a bit on HJ's talk page. Best &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, don't worry about it - thanks for your comments about my revised version of the article. I've posted a request for feedback at Talk:Richard Goldstone, if you would care to contribute there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone
'''You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith''' As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
 * In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to comply. Ironically, I don't think I've ever edited it, in fact. Just tried to help corral a consensus about the Yediot source. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I templated everyone who's edited the talk page or had any remote connection to the article over the last 9 days. Nothing personal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I didn't take it personally. Was just amused. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 00:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Carl Levin
Thanks for your input regarding the dispute regarding the Carl Levin article. Because I am pushing 3RR, can you revert Botendaddy's disputed edit? Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About reliability of YA
YA is the central and the most popular Israeli newspaper. Truly to say I really thinks its a tabloid at the same manner as I think the NYT and any other popular newspaper is. But sources like NYT, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times and others are considered reliable. Can you explain the difference?--LReit (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

gratzi
Thanks for your recent reversion of vandalism to/on the Adrian Lamo page. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

????
I emptied a dead subpage in my user space and you reverted that edit due to that edit change being "unconstructive" ????

?????????????

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, most likely a mistake while doing vandalism patrol. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling for vandalism! North8000 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Midget, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I clicked the revert button right as your edit appeared in the diff screen. It rolled you back instead of canceling the action, ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, trigger! &mdash; e. ripley\talk 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "Price elasticity of demand" article reversions
Thanks for reverting those 2 changes to the price elasticity article. They were an odd combination of edits by the same user (apparently): the 1st  change (10 vs. 12.5 in the example computation) could've been a good-faith error caused by misunderstanding the point of the example, but the 2nd change was clearly vandalism. --Jackftwist (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like you...
You're stealing all of my vandalism! I need to revert some! Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count ) 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided to come out of retirement. I started yesterday. Besides, Wikipedia is my cold drink. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count ) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Russell T Davies
The abovenamed is a prominent homosexual public figure in Great Britain and beyond, not to acknowledge this until the bottom of his article is preposterous. My edit was neither a joke nor vandalism. Why is simply stating this fact considered an act of vandalism? Surely wikipedia editors and admins are not such blatant homophobes! 124.170.36.189 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should read the article (for your comment at User talk:124.170.36.189), however, still being a weasel word. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on his page.  &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoopsie.
I was trying to revert vandalism to Warrington Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, but I accidentally rolled back your rollback of the edit I was trying to rollback, if that makes any sense at all. I think we accidentally pushed the rollback button at the same time. My bad. Just letting you know why someone rolledback your rollback, and subsequently rolled back that rollback. (I apologise if I'm not making sense; it's finals week). cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problemo (how's that for gringo Spanish?) and thanks for the luck-wish—I'll need it! Dymuniadau gorau to you as well cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that too. Last week, I thought "Oh, I still have one more week to study, it's no biggie." This week, it's panic mode—and project mode. Four unexpected final projects given to me in one day. Yikes.... cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a shared IP
At a high school. You might as well just ban it. --180.95.16.18 (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, so I can't do those sorts of things. Although, even if I were, long-term IP banning pretty much doesn't happen here because of the potential for locking out good-faith editors. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 11:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
That when a new user is the creator and main editor of an article and they blank it, it should be a CSD G7, not a reversion as you did here. Thanks,  Tommy2010   [message]  01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sort of information isn't easily available when you're using Huggle for vandalism patrol (all that's shown is the change). Besides, I don't see that this qualifies as a speedy anyway, it appears to be a legitimate article, whether the original author blanked it or not. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * you have a point for that article so I apologize, but you can still see all the diffs (as well as the contribs- click the boxes at the top) may be a pain but you should use 'z' to see the previous diff and verify the article creator. There is no point in reverting a good faith page blanking and warning them for it. Thanks,  Tommy2010   [message]  19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also a good point! Thank you! &mdash; e. ripley\talk 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Response
I received more than three admonitions by different people regarding my Kerick page edits. All three claim to have made reversions. LOL -- they were probably reverting each other. In any event, I started a new section on the Talk page regarding that ridiculous article. I typically make vandalism type edits because the "owners" of the articles refuse to engage in a dialogue regarding any changes that violates the their "NPOV." 8=D 75.30.69.83 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

John R. Brinkley
The article has been reviewed and is now on hold pending revision. See the review here. WTF? (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

UGG Factsheet
Hi Ripley - I do not understand why you did not consider the IP Australia fact sheet to be a secondary source. Looking at the comments on the Talk page it seems that every commenting editor (Johnuniq, GDallimore, and Donama) found the Fact sheet to be perfectly acceptable if not valuable. It is certainly one step beyond the events it describes since it was composed in 2008, two full years after the decision it describes. It was not issued by either Deckers or Uggs-N-Rugs. It was only being used to list the events, rather than comment. I feel that removing it, denies the readers of the most concise, accurate and current description of the events. I know these arguments are feeble but I think the other editors have done a fine job explaining this as well on the Talk page.--Factchk (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see your reasoning. Perhaps it would be better to include both the quote from Thompson as well as the removal for non-use. I just feel that to state that the mark was declared generic is blind falsehood. I think my Capone referrence in the comments is good metaphor. That Capone was hunted down because he was a murderer is notable, however the actual charge was tax-evasion. --Factchk (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The way it's treated in the article now is how reliable secondary sources characterized the decision. Absent another secondary source that characterizes it another way, I see no reason to change it.  Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to determine the truth or falseness of information contained in reliable sources, only to summarize that information accurately. Of course where another reliable source has conflicting information, then we would summarize the conflict.  But the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, presuming of course that the information in question is contained in a reliable source. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

?
The recent edit that you made to the page Werner von Fritsch has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. 1. Different servers? Don't see that. 2. Since when is a wikilink to a non-existant page, and run-on sentence structure, proper style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.171.250 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)