User talk:Andjam/Archive3

Archives:


 * User talk:Andjam/Archive1 - main talk
 * User talk:Andjam/Archive2 - more talk prior to my move to Massachusetts
 * User talk:Andjam/Speedy1 - I read all user talk messages, but especially enjoy the vicious ones and refractor them to a page of their own.

Discussion of articles in talk page
What article do you mean? I always used the article's talk page to discuss articles. Lord Metroid 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

hanson-young
Right, I'm adding references that can be used later to weave into the article. Since the article is on the chopping block right now, I'm rather more concerned with establishing notability rather than getting every sentence in suitable order. — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Cod RTA articles
I don't see any objectionable advertising (any advertising at all, actually!) on the Web sites you delinked. FCYTravis 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The honor is mine
My pleasure. I'm semi-active at the site, to keep opinion from being stated as fact, but it will inevitably be criticized. Happy editing! --Hojimachongtalk 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising by Westpac
Hi Andjam. I have to say I am gobsmacked by your implication that I have somehow singled out for deletion an article you created because I have disagreed with you at the Andrew Bolt page. Looking back at the history, we had a brief, but perfectly civil exchange last September and we ironed out the issue you raised. As I explained at the talk page for the AfD, I had no idea the article was yours, and it wouldn't have mattered a bit either way. I have had stronger disagreements with another user at the Bolt page, but I'm no more interested in "targeting" his articles or edits than I am in seeking out yours for any acts of vindictiveness. I simply shake my head at your suggestion. Have a wonderful day. MrMonroe 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics
Great article. Thanks. Keep up the good work. :-) Steve Dufour 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your tag on Hilaly
Taj El-Din Hilaly's still as POV as it was when there were brief discussions concerning the issue on the article's talk-page. I presume you're at least partly in agreement that it's not NPOV, and that you're simply asking for my input.

I'm going to archive the current talk-page and start anew with this issue. I doubt there are many editors watching the page, but trying a systematic approach to balancing the article out couldn't hurt. Don't wait on my action, though. I'll probably take some time, being occupied or lazy. -- Shoejartalk/edits 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Disputes and dialogue involving CAIR
I've merged the content of Disputes and dialogue involving CAIR into CAIR (Disputes and dialogue section) and tagged the former for deletion. -- Shoejartalk/edits 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem
I was just reading the talk page of the harlequin page, and it definitely seems like you're not assuming good faith when you throw around these ad hominem attacks arguments, that because someone made contributions to the shock page article we should doubt whether they're sincere. 74.104.2.157 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Jordan
 * If you register as a user, it'd be easier to reply to you. Is there a particular user you feel I have wrongly accused of having bad faith? Andjam 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Meta redaction
Thanks for redacting my redaction comment; it added unnecessary heat to the fire. I get perturbed when Wikipedians are summarily classified by anything; I should have been more calm. --Iamunknown 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Brian Haberstroh
Your recent edit to Brian Haberstroh (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Andjam, I am trying to get the page back to the state before Special:Contributions/63.118.11.114 edited it, without losing sunsequent updates.

Thank you for your help on the Haslingden article
Thank you on your help on saving the Bruce Haslingden article from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Foomatic
Heya Andjam, thanks mate.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting/Database/AboutFoomatic should help :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Uğur Uluocak article
While looking at the people who vandalised the Taner Akçam article, I noticed the article on Uğur Uluocak, and that you described Uluocak as a communist. It looks like you weren't trying to say anything bad about him, and the person who vandalised the Akçam article apparently liked Uluocak, so I don't suspect that Uluocak has been libelled. But just to be on the safe side, would you be able to tell me if there's a reliable source that states that Uluocak was a communist? Andjam 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my response delayed, since I returned right now from a trip to France. Here are some links you requested, but unfortunately in Turkish language:
 * http://www.tkp.org.tr/index.php?yayinno=221&yayinyazi=766
 * http://www.soldergisi.com/yazi.php?yazigoster=2384
 * http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/2002/09/26/politika/h84.htm
 * http://haberyorumlari.hurriyet.com.tr/List.aspx?HaberID=157165&PageNo=1
 * If you need more details, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Happy wikiediting. CeeGee 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)