User talk:Astanhope/june 16 2007 archive

Changes to sirkowski
Sirkowski writes on political topics. Sirkowski Watch is an attempt to critique those writings without being subject to summary deletion as a troll on Liberal Avenger or Miss Dynamite.

Changes at Template:User cal
Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin = uniformed Nazi?!
Hi. Have you visited http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com in the last couple of months? Did you notice that the blog's logo depicts Malkin as a uniformed Nazi? (And you called me childish!) Did not notice the stream of unsubstantiated, damaging slurs on her character? Have you read WP:EL? Have you read WP:BLP? Can you find any recent post on the blog that criticises Malkin without insulting her?

Yes, we did once agree that malkinwatch was worth linking to. But the blog went downhill a few months ago, about the time Malkin switched from textblogging to video-blogging. (The bloggers seem to have tried to lift their standards a little in the last few days, but they're still near the bottom of the gutter.)

If you want malkinwatch in the article, you will need to first convince people that several sections of WP:EL should be ignored and that parts of WP:BLP should be rewritten. Barring that, I'll keep removing the link.

CWC (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris... What then can we choose as the definitive blog dedicated to criticizing her?  I've already removed "MichelleMalkinisanIdiot.com."  Perhaps relevant is the fact that part of the Malkin shtick seems to be posting unflattering photos of people she disapproves of - see any Malkin post on Cynthia McKinney or Cindy Sheehan.  The link remains.  --AStanhope 11:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See the first paragraph in this section? It's not there for decoration. Before you restore that link again, please  answer the questions  I asked above.
 * And why on earth do we need any blogs that criticise her? If we had a blog that satisfied WP:EL and WP:BLP, then we'd link to it. Since we don't, we simply don't link to any blogs. CWC (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit comment
 * remarkable that one might be offended by a cartoon of someone wearing a swastika armband but feel nothing in the face of that same person advocating mass race-based incarceration
 * strikes me as a pathetic attempt to dodge the issue. I have repeatedly pointed out that linking to MalkinWatch violates Wikipedia policy as well as the WP:EL guidelines, and you have never even tried to deny that. Why are you defying Wikipedia's rules?

Who vandalizes Michelle Malkin
Putting aside our differences over malkinwatch, I was saddened to see you assume that this vandal came from the liberal side of politics. I think it more probable that these "misogynistic/racist slurs" come from misogynistic, racist far-right people, who would see doing "great damage to the liberal position as a whole" as highly desireable. There are some self-professed liberals who have written stupid things about Malkin (and others), but I believe that most of the racist/sexist garbage comes from Nazi-oids trying to cosy up to liberals and left-wingers through common hatred, and I am happy to see that almost everyone on the left rejects them immediately. Cheers, CWC (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That person's comments really upset me. "Can't we all just get along?" Oh well! Thanks for the note.  --AStanhope 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin advertising blog links
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Michelle Malkin. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Since the blog has a stated objective of getting on Wikipedia, it's adcruft. It's use explicitly violates WP:EL, WP:BLP and WP:NN. Criticism of living persons needs to come from reliable sources and blogs simply do not qualify. --Tbeatty 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Claude Vermette
You do yourself injury by passive-agressively pursuing this vendetta. If you insist, you can list the article on your userpage as one you started, though that does put your record of honesty in jeopardy seeing as the edit history belies this. Also note that I've nominated your recreation of Interweb medley for speedy deletion. Recreating deleted pages, no matter the content, is... well, I'm just kind of astonished that I need to tell another experienced editor that it's not done. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Is it possible that you have me confused with somebody else? --AStanhope 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's next to impossible here. You must be taking all this very personally to respond like that. I'm sorry that this has distressed you so. From your edit history you seem to be a good editor and a positive influence at Wikipedia—please try to put this behind you and not let it affect the quality of your participation at Wikipedia. You might find that the essay No angry mastodons offers some good insights and perspective that would help. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That was very, very gracious. Thanks. I'm going to think on what you wrote a bit before giving a better reply. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kingston, MA
Regardless of any historical importance of Kingston and Plymouth to American culture, calling it "the Cradle of American Civilization" is POV, and in any case, it's irrelevant to Neil Cicierega. That's why I removed it. —Adam Atlas 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award
Comment moved from your user page -- Gogo Dodo 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I wish everyone agreed with you. There's a change that the image will be changed. --JuanMuslim 1m 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

 * I moved your vote of support for the original image of the Islamic Barnstar Award.--JuanMuslim 1m 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bangkok
Bangkok has been nominated as a fetured article improvment drive thing. You can get to this page by clicking on the talk for bangkok and then taking the link to the article improvment drive page. Please vote so we can make this into a featured article nominee! Felixboy 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Life on Mars
Hello, thanks for your message. I've posted a query on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see what the official position on third-party hosting of trailers is. Angmering 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Gurukkal and Gurukul
Hello Astanhope,

Meaning of Gurukkal and Gurukul are diffrend and the topic now in Wiki is correct.

Regards

talk

you deserve it!
i checked out your edit history/contribs--very impressive. you're a good co-oper. :-) Cindery 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right to a voice on schools
Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22 Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help
Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

George Allen (U.S. politician)
Please stop adding derogatory nicknames to George Allen (U.S. politician). This is not his legal name or one he calls himself by. Adding such to the article again may be considered vandalism. --StuffOfInterest 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message on my talk page. Unless you can provide references to reputable sources (not blogs) there is no way you can convince me (or most other editors) that he chooses to use "Macaca" as a nickname.  Come up with a few articles in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Congressional Quarterly, or another mainstream publication and then it can go in. --StuffOfInterest 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not included "Macaca" as a nickname for George Allen in his article. Per WP:BLP it is against Wikipedia policy to include it unless you can find a reliable source that it is anything more than a derogatory term used by his opponents. Continued inclusion of the nickname may result in you being submitted for an article ban under Disruptive editing. --Bobblehead 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Barrington Hall video on YouTube
I think the best way to avoid a protracted edit war on the YouTube link is to add some sort of free license on the video's page on YouTube. I guess that would require permission from the filmmaker, but I'm assuming you are able to contact them? Otherwise I think people will keep removing the link. Best, --MCB 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Astanhope—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Please refrain from using edit summaries like "Link to video stays. Copyright bedwetters asked politely to leave this article alone." Thanks. --Guinnog 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
Please provide a citation for any cause of death -- AP and all other sources available through google news are saying no cause of death has been provided. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Just wanted to let you know you have reverted Barrington Hall three times, if you revert it a fourth within a 24 hour period you may be blocked for violating WP:3RR. If you aren't already familiar with the policy I'd recommend reading it. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Woops, warning is redundent. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand
Hello, I don't understand why you did this edit. This user Robert fuller is the pseudonym and account of a "sex vandal", blocked, I don't think we should notice other users what he did, and where he shared his pic. Yug (talk)  21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amanda Marcotte
An editor has nominated Amanda Marcotte, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Friedman (unit)
Please don't remove templates while discussion is ongoing. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of reverting...
Why not explain your understanding of BLP on the talk page and why it applies, or reword the text to some compromise position. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fessenden tower base
See for more details on the Fessenden legacy in Marshfield. 121a0012 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For Love Not Lisa
I have added a "" template to the article For Love Not Lisa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rklawton 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Miss Dynamite
Please do not restore the Miss Dynamite article again, it was deleted after a valid AfD discussion. If you want to contest this discussion and deletion, please ues deletion review. Fram 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again
While I've made the personal choice to ignore your harassment, I won't stand still while you behave uncivilly toward other editors. Restoring an article that had been properly AfD'd is inappropriate. We have the deletion review process for that. You've been editing long enough to know that. However, resorting to name calling when your mistake is pointed out to you by another editor is flat out wrong – especially on the heels of previous blocks. Your actions make it appear that you have a significant disregard for the fact that we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Out of deference to your many useful edits, I'll limit the duration of your block to 1 week. Please learn from this. Rklawton 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why have you been stalking me? --AStanhope 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to keep an eye on high-profile vandals - especially ones who don't seem to understand why they are being held accountable for their actions. Your edits could have caused Wikipedia significant national embarrassment, yet you haven't been apologetic in the least.  Indeed, you've tried to hide or even lie about your actions.  I wouldn't call it stalking, though.  I just don't want to see any more harm come to Wikipedia, or find valuable contributors being discouraged by your incivility.  You'll learn, or you'll face a community ban.  Rklawton 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do these edits represent, if not stalking me from the articles listed on my User page that I have either started or written?           Consider that you stalked me through these articles - after meting out unquestionable discipline to me.  Indeed, it is important to remember who is in the position of power in this relationship - and who has none.  Furthermore, had I weighed in on the Miss Dynamite AfD and it had lost, I would have accepted that and moved on.  There was nothing antagonistic about my pointing out honestly that I MISSED the AfD and that the article was important to me.  Tell the truth...  If you missed the AfD on a decent article that was important to you and you had the means to restore it (you are, indeed, an administrator), you wouldn't do so?  This weeklong block is excessive and abusive.  --AStanhope 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply: Rklawton 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually, I plan to review a lot more of your work to see if there's evidence of additional vandalism. No doubt I'll make edits along the way per wiki-custom of fixing problems.
 * 2) Missing the AfD is no excuse for ignoring the AfD's results. Appropriate channels exist to request a deletion review, and this is spelled out right at the top of the article's AfD page.  Therefore, there's no excuse at all for restoring a properly deleted article.  And there's certainly no excuse for insulting the editor who pointed this out.
 * 3) Power is relative. We have processes to deal with abuse of power.  For example, you are welcome to request a block review.  Given that you have not once admitted making some serious errors in judgment, all the while making fun of my efforts to mop up the messes you're making, I wouldn't hold out much hope - especially when you consider the bad press Wikipedia has gotten for vandalism to high profile articles of the sort that you yourself have perpetrated.  The feedback I've received regarding my actions so far is that your blocks were too short.
 * I think you should take a step back and consider how this looks from the outside. I am a serious, honest and productive editor here.  You are an administrator who appears to have an axe to grind with me.  You've blocked me for the third time in just a handful of days - treatment generally reserved for non-participants in our glorious project here.  In my book, blocking ANYONE for a week for posting "douchechill" would be excessive.  It looks far worse when the person doing the blocking has been bullying the blockee.  I think most normal people would consider what you're doing to be bullying.  I'll bet that you don't consider yourself a bully.  Think about it.  --AStanhope 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And you have yet to justify vandalizing high-profile articles. That's not what serious, honest, or productive editors are known for doing.  Rklawton 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when did a recitation of the crimes one has committed become a facet of the discipline process here? This isn't criminal court where in order to plead guilty one must confess to his or her crimes in front of the judge.  You blocked me, I bore that burden - the end.  I have no justification for what I did.  I've been punished for it.  The punishment is over.  Next.  --AStanhope 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now all you have to do is demonstrate the appropriate respect for Wikipedia's other rules. Recent problem areas include:  copyrights, AfD, and civility.  The best way to demonstrate this respect is simply to follow the rules when your block expires.  If you have questions about these rules, just ask.  A little civility goes a long way.  There's tens of thousands of us working together to build a respectable encyclopedia.  Actions such as yours work against this purpose and the community simply won't put up with it.  If asking you to follow the rules makes me sound like a bully, then you've got a strange definition of bully.  Rklawton 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A very professional edit by you: --AStanhope 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Q Strange question
Do you have any sources for your assertion that this guy is notable? I'll watch this page. Thanks, Darkspots 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/V sinizter
I'm sorry if I was a bit uncivil in this AfD discussion; however, there's no reason to include everything that already exists. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. I apologize for the "So what?" comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah - no offense taken. I am most definitely an "inclusionist" when it comes to these things, but I understand your perspective.  --AStanhope 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I ain't trippin'

 * My story goes like this, man
 * I smooth went out on wax
 * Singing girl, that's your life
 * Female funk and smart rap
 * Silky D
 * Worked the beat
 * Kicked me down cold cash
 * I was riding the bus one day
 * Next day I was on the gas
 * Everybody loved my rap
 * Rolling down the strip
 * Then one day
 * Just like that
 * Homeboy jumped on my tip
 * You started spreading rumors, man
 * You said you saw me rapping in jail
 * No - I never came down to the flatlands
 * I was chilling with my homies on the hill
 * I ain't tripping but the word went out
 * Said my rap was through
 * I can't really say where it all began
 * So I'm blaming it all on you

Bal Thackeray
While I agree that Bal Thackeray is an extremist, Wikipedia policy prohibits us from calling him such in the article about him. The word "extremist" is a loaded term and is very much pejorative. It is inherently negative. There is no neutral way to call someone an "extremist." Therefore, if we call somebody an extremist, we are not being neutral and therefore would be violating Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. That is why I reverted your edit to Bal Thackeray. Please do not revert my edit again, as the use of the word "extremist" is a violation of WP:NPOV and therefore also a violation of WP:BLP. --Hnsampat 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of anyone who calls himself an "extremist," due to the inherent negative nature of the word. Still, if you can find a reliable source that accurately quotes Bal Thackeray as having called himself an "extremist," then we might be able to add that to the article. We have to be careful, though. He has to actually explicitly say that he's an extremist, to the point where we can incontovertibly call him a "self-described 'extremist'." (The policy of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons requires that we be super-thorough in researching this.) I know that Thackeray has said stuff in support of Hitler, etc., but to my knowledge, he has never said something like, "I'm an extremist and proud of it." And we can't presume that he'd call himself one unless we can source it. So, until we can quote him calling himself an extremist, we can't call him that in the article. --Hnsampat 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words on my user talk page. These days a significant amount of the research that goes into my books comes through our work on SourceWatch, our own wiki-based encyclopedia of politicians, PR front groups and the like. If you have some free time when you're not working on Wikipedia, I hope you'll join us. --Sheldon Rampton 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply by R. Baley
Re:this note. I reported it as well, I also req. page protection which I believe has been forthcoming. Sorry I didn't fix the issue earlier on Greenwald's page, but I thought it was pointless to go back and forth with someone who has, by their multiple edit histories, demonstrated such clear and unwavering intent. R. Baley 05:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raphaelaarchon must *really* hate Glenn Greenwald. Yikes.  --AStanhope 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call on adding this back to the BLP noticeboard. R. Baley 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No Free Image project
I'm not aware of any such project. People talk about stuff at Wikipedia talk:Fromowner but that's about it.Geni 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Kalam
Well, when I changed the picture, the previous one was a broken link (as it still is in this exact moment). Dantadd 12:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario - A Proposal
Since I'm well-known, among my many, many friends, for my Ghandi-like ability to bring belligerents together in the spirit of dialogue and understanding, I'd like to propose the following: you make reference to the SF attack (in slightly drier language, perhaps?) which will reference a new article on the details and history surrounding the attack and subsequent trial(s), which we will work on together. This new article would, I'd imagine, be particularly timely as Marjorie Knoller is about to face murder charges - again. Please take this note for what it's worth as you're obviously as stubborn and opinionated as I am and this is extremely difficult for me. I figure this approach would satisfy your desire to include every last damn barely-relevent piece of information and, at the same time, satisfy my desire to deal with the hysteria and misinformation surrounding PdPCs. - Frangible