User talk:Astanhope/2005archve

Powerline
Is is really NPOV to delete Powerline (blog) reference in the Terri Schiavo article because you believe it is not credible? Powerline was involved in breaking the Killian documents story and is a legitimate blog site. You should not have deleted the link without discussion. Thanks. 24.18.59.229 06:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is NPOV to do so. --AStanhope 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howdy
Howdy in return... :) Did I catch your random online attention? --- Longhair | Talk 09:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)=


 * I've noticed my stubbing on several of your Australian biographic article contributions. It's good to see you spreading yourself around as widely as I do here ;)~ -- Longhair | Talk 10:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

de-linking
Hi, I noticed your comment on the Terri Chiavo talk page regarding overlinking. The server is a bit slow tonight and I haven't seen the before and after, but I quite familiar with the general problem -- at least I think it is a problem. There is even a page dedicated to it: Make only links relevant to the context which many users disagree with (see the Talk page for further discussion). My own feeling is that internal links should be based on some kind of higher-level relationship, and I have waged battles against overlinking but it is definitely a minority position; people here like to link everything simply because it is possible. I've even seen complaints that an article didn't have enough links -- I kid you not. I do draw the line with simple English nouns; if I things like "water" and "sand" linked, I de-link them. And of course redundant links. Take care. -- Viajero 23:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC
I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I sympathize with the labors of trying to keep an article NPOV, especially when the tiniest of minorities insist otherwise. Mike H 01:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

pitching (again) at the windmills
Amigo, I have another, most likely Quixotic cause for you: the recent proliferation of series boxes and the like.

Check out this article: Erskine Hamilton Childers.

As you will notice, there are five template boxes, not including of course categories. Given the modest dimensions of the text, the boxes appear take on more importance than the text itself.

Worse, look at the redundancy:


 * the information in the "President of Ireland" box at the bottom is duplicated in the large template box on the right
 * the "Tánaiste" box duplicates the information in "Tánaistithe na hÉireann"

Ok, the "Cabinet Minister" box isn't redundant, and provides lots of links, but does it really add anything essential?

Just like adding wikilinks, people seem to add these boxes simply because it is possible.

Thing is, basically I like graphic elements, like images, lists, that break up otherwise visually boring, monolithic blocks of text, but they have to be used with taste and clear purpose.

Ah well, probably another losing battle. :( -- Viajero 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delinking dates
I saw your delinking at Amber Brkich and I just wanted you to tell you to look at the Manual of Style regarding dates. While I don't care either way for most of your delinking, I just want you to realize that the years are supposed to be wikified so that people's date preferences are followed. --Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Opoid abuse
The section is not about opoid use, but abuse. I am not a proponent of the idea that drug use is abuse, and in fact, I am currently working on the drug abuse and substance abuse articles to dispel that myth. Unfortunately, User:Guttlekraw (talk • contribs) is on a mission to remove the term "drug abuse" from the Wikipedia, and he has gone so far to change direct quotes from studies, books about drug abuse, and clinical experiments. In the context of abuse his changes do not make sense, and it should be evident that he is not editing in good faith. Please consider a self-revert. --Viriditas | Talk 01:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Viriditas | Talk 01:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you have stumbled into a dispute between V and I. Please let me assure you that despite his rant, I am simply trying to use the terms 'use' and 'abuse' in their correct places. Where we are simply talking about people using drugs, using the term 'use', and where we are talking about a medical or legal situation citing who claims that the use is 'abuse'. Would appreciate your help on this, Guttlekraw 18:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hooray!
Your bestest favoritest buddy ever NCdave is back, unsurprisingly on the Terri Schiavo page. And he has a friend. Proto 11:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't know. Maybe he's turned over a new leaf *giggle* Proto 08:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Delinking...again; Schiavo...again.
Thanks for taking the abstractappeal.com link out of the article. At first blush it would appear to be simple delinking as is your passion. However, and you may not know this if you haven't been following it, I believe it got placed in the advocacy sites area by an editor who's trying to justify including his own websites (yes, plural) in the advocacy area by putting abstractappeal.com there, too. It's a long story. Anyway, double word score for you. Thanks. Duckecho 04:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In case Duck Echo didn't notice, I was making a modification that would benefit another person besides myself, so I don't see why he criticized me; maybe my link wasn't the best idea, as you pointed out that it would advertise a law firm, but I did not link one of my own website, even though, as a major participant who did better in court than the Florida Governor, I would have been justified. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, linking the abstract appeal website is the same as linking the author's web page, as far as advertising law forms goes: They both point towards the lawyer who wrote it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Let Duck be on note that posting another person's link is not promoting my site: Posting links to my site would be. It is indeed a long story. Now, how would this link I added be advertising this law firm any more than the link that was already there? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

answering Adam
answering Adam: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Terri Schiavo
FWIW, I don't think Gordon is "crazy" or playing pranks. My gut feeling tells me that he's a newbie and could benefit from some patient advice if he is to improve as a user. Or not. --Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he's crazy... He obviously means well and I agree that he could likely benefit from some patient advice and that he will likely improve as a user.  Listen - I'd prefer a nut to a zealot any day.  There doesn't appear to be a mean-spirited bone in his body.  I think that he'll allow himself to be reigned in here once he has a better understanding of how things are supposed to work.  --AStanhope 11:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Or not. --AStanhope 11:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts template - Plymouth, Massachusetts
Apparently someone thought the cities list was inaccurate and had POV issues. The result was that the person had the cities list eliminated. To address that concern, I reverted back to an earlier list of cities and made a notation of it in the "discussion."

You can still see the Massachusetts template at the Boston article. If you feel that more cities could be added to the list, feel free to do so and place the template in the corresponding city articles. For towns, please place them in a separate listing in the template (see the template for Washington state. I think that template is a good example).Pentawing 18:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No Problem
No problem, we have been fighting the troll for several days and no admis seem to be interested in the issue. It is clearly one individual and he just keeps reverting to his own crackpot version. The user has reverted at least 50 times and there are at least 5 different editors reverting his edits --Gorgonzilla 17:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User 67.18.109.218
I see that you've scolded and warned User 67.18.109.218 for obnoxious behavior. This user made an unfounded "Sockpuppet" accusation and vandalized my User page. He/she should be blocked. --AStanhope 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam. I see they did, sorry about that. But I'm not ready to block the IP right now, since I warned him/her I'd block them if they made more nuisance edits, which they haven't so far. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Threats
You had better take a look at no personal attacks. If you can't write anything beyond a single sentence, don't write anything at all. If you continue to threaten me, I'll block you from editing so fast your head will spin. Fix your article and leave it be. - Lucky 6.9 02:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to give you one chance to remove that edit summary. - Lucky 6.9 02:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a perfectly legitimate edit summary. Go away, please.  --AStanhope 02:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you go away and stop with the attacks. FYI, I have actually expanded your stub. Deleting a single-sentence stub is not an abuse of adminship. Threatening another user is abuse of the site. Can we drop this, please? - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I quit. Have fun with your single-sentence reggae bands. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of adminship
It doesn't work that way. Friday (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

New Page patrol
I'm not sure whether I still need to comment on this, as it appears that Lucky6.9 has withdrawn from the project. I'll do so anyway.

I like Lucky and I don't feel very comfortable about criticising him publically, but he is very quick off the mark in deleting sub-stub articles. On the one hand, I don't understand why he does so much new page patrol when it obviously causes him so much stress, and I have suggested to him before that he cuts that activity out of his Wikipedia time. On the other hand, new pages patrol is a vital part of Wikipedia, and it really isn't practical to come back and look again at an article ten minutes or an hour later to see if the author has expanded it. New articles are created at a rate of several per minute, and some need to be checked for copyvios, and others put on articles for deletion. On the gripping hand, there really is no reason for a one-sentence article to be created. Why not write a full paragraph before you hit the save page button? I've heard people say that they're worried about losing their work in a power outage or computer crash, but for most of us such things really don't happen that often. The solution to this in any case is to write your initial article in a text editor, saving to your hard disk as often as you want, and pasting it into Wikipedia when you're ready.

Lucky's removed his email address from Wikipedia, so I'll add a note to his talk page about this, but there's no guarantee that he'll read it.-gadfium 03:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dub Is a Weapon
You're welcome. User:Sixand (talk • contribs) didn't actually delete the page (s/he is not an admin), he just replaced the content with the notice. As an aside, I noticed your 'discussions' with User:Lucky 6.9 (talk • contribs) about this article--I hope that you would agree with me that things might have gone a lot better if both of you had kept cool heads. JeremyA 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW. Should the Dub Is a Weapon article actually be titled Dub is a Weapon? (small i on the 'is')

I tried. I've also cooled off considerably and I won't step down from the adminship over something like this. I have done no harm to this site and I never will. I even tried to expand your entry as a sign of good faith. - Lucky 6.9 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like "Sixend" was monitoring the goings-on and decided to do a bit of trolling. The article is intact. In the meantime, I'm sorry for torquing you off. As I said, I want what's best for the site. We're all told to "be bold" in editing and sometimes toes get treaded on. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fisk
Hi, please remember not to use "rvv" as an edit summary in a content dispute. It's short for "revert of vandalism", which there is a clear definition of (see Vandalism). Incorrect use is unnecessarily inflammatory. Thanks. Rd232 talk 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)