User talk:Chiliad22

hi

Wow
You're doing an excellent job with the DuPont Manual High School article. I'm really impressed. Keep up the good work! Khalfani Khaldun  17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, to be honest your edits and nominating it for GA inspired me. I hope to nominate for FA once I get done doing a very thorough summary of the history and sports... if you can help with that and with copy editing, I'd really appreciate it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gone through and read it all once. Maybe I'll read it again tomorrow to make sure I got everything. Do you have archive access on the CJ website or something? You're pulling in all kinds of references that I would have never known existed. It's hard finding anything else from here in Austin. =/ Khalfani  Khaldun  00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a LFPL library card you can get CJ back to 1999 through the library website. To go earlier than that you need to actually be at the library but I usually save a bunch of articles that look useful to my flash drive then read them later. As for my work on the article I'm really only maybe a third of the way done, I still need to flesh out the 80s, 90s and 00s history then I'm going to redo a lot of the athletics to give a fuller history. Then lastly the intro. Your copy edits are a lot of help, hopefully I should be making a bunch of edits tomorrow to at least get the history finished. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The AFD has been closed
But really, does it really matter where that table is for several days to several weeks, in the architecture of this website? Does it really have any lasting impact, since when it's done myself or Julian (or another dozen admins on that article) will just merge it all in and then redirect the page to save the history? rootology ( C )( T ) 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the one who changed the namespace, so I just don't get how you are now saying the namespace doesn't matter. Why change it at all? If it's just a temporary measure and we're going to bend some rules, fine, that's reasonable... but then it shouldn't have needed to be moved at all in the first place. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that someone put the Template up for deletion, and I moved it to make the deletion irrelevant and to get the TFD template off of the article which is getting insane views at the moment. Then you AFD'd it, which just put us back to square one. For the most basic mechanical and technical reasons, the table needs to be physically separate right now. There's no way around that, and no policy to support OR disallow it explicitly, so we did what we did to just make everyone's life transparently easier. My point is that temporarily doing things like this makes really no difference long-term, so it's not even worth bringing process up. Anyone that's experienced on this site would have recognized what Julian and I did there as clear WP:IAR and a really special exemption. Seriously--once it all calms down, hopefully tomorrow, but for all we know it could be weeks--any number of us can merge and delete the page in question. It's really not a big deal. Julian's move was to fix a technical problem, mine was to get around a silly Template restriction. Both outside of policy, both 100% right to do in this limited case. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD wasn't being shown on the main article, which like I said, would have been disruptive. I just don't get why you moved it from invalid namespace to another then act like anyone saying we should change the namespace doesn't know what they're talking about. Why couldn't you have just closed the TFD as a speedy keep? You got concerned with the namespace, and now are patronizing me for being concerned with the namespace. Believe me... I know all about IAR, and it was right to apply it to the TFD... only... you seem to have still felt compelled to keep it out of the template namespace, so you were just ignoring some rules. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot point, it's back in templatespace now. Let's not forget we're all acting in good faith here. –xeno talk 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Thanks for being so calm and respectful through this, Xeno. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1984 walkout picture
Hey there. I know you're working really hard on the article, but per the non-free rationale that you used, "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." The article won't make FA with that picture in it. =/ Khalfani  Khaldun  21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... that's clear enough. I was just trying to find the best fair use image I could. I'll keep it to free images... there's one of the old building from an 1896 book I'll scan, I'm pretty sure that's indisputably public domain. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Anything pre-1923 is public domain by now. Anything after that, though, and you've gotta start double checking everything. Khalfani  Khaldun  21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming
"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide.  ↜Just me, here, now … 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Zodiac (film)
I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that the tone and statements in your last post here were not personal attacks, but I'd urge you to revisit that post and attempt to make just a wee bit more civil because it isn't at all clear whether the comments are personal or not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. ''You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings here on this talk page, admonished about it here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia etiquette guidelines regarding behavior, civility, and assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts. '' LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I haven't made any edits to the article. Feel free to report me to AN/I or wherever for pointing out someone was incorrect on a talk page... sheesh. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, you are well aware of the issue and the uncivil and insulting tone that your posts have taken on that page. If you cannot post discussion in a civil manner without resorting to childish and churlish commentary, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you to attempt to do so. There is a great difference between debating something and crying foul or "object object object" because someone tried to respond to a post you have made. It is bad faith, out of line and unacceptable. Sheesh, grow up. LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Telling someone to "grow up" is the closest thing to a personal attack that's been made in this entire silly affair. So you came here to lecture on being nice to everybody yet provided a much worse example of offensive behavior than anything I'd done. You also continue editing a comment I replied to, which is misleading. So I say to you, "If you cannot post discussion in a civil manner without resorting to childish and churlish commentary, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you to attempt to do so." --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Learn about edit conflicts. They by definition are what happens when someone is actually continuing to edit while someone else attempts to post a response, especially when the edit is posted with an edit summary stating that there was an "edit conflict". The bottom line, in any case, is that your talk page behavior could use some improvement. You've made less than 400 edits since you've been here, there is room to learn user behavior policy. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An edit conflict still isn't an excuse for modifying your own comment after I replied to it to point out a mistake. If I said I got an edit conflict in one of the edits of mine you object to, when you agree it absolved me of any error I might have made in that edit? Yeah right. You're the one who told me to "grow up", so regardless of how many edits either of us have made, your own behavior could apparently stand some improvement. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note for any observers: I posted a template warning via script to this page here, which was intended to be via template. When I realized that I had hit the wrong script button and left, I reopened the page to replace the template, and when it was saved, produced an edit conflict with the post made by Chiliad22. I then saved my version with the accurate edit summary stating "replacing wrong template with correct template". Chiliad22 has chosen to become argumentative over that although there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline prohibiting the correction of a posting error by the poster. It does not constitute inappropriate refactoring, deception or an attempt to disguise the intent of the original post, although in this case it did provoke constitute a quite pointy objection which has only served as an attempt to divert the intention of the post, which was a warning about Chiliad22's failure to assume good faith. In fact, his conduct only serves to reinforce that there is no good faith present. Chiliad22, there is no policy against correcting a posting error shortly after it was made. This editor has been unnecessarily contentious in any postings that I have seen him make today.

Therefore, to remove any question, I am posting the warning as it was intended to have been posted:

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings here on this talk page, admonished about it here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia etiquette guidelines regarding behavior, civility, and assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * " there is no policy against correcting a posting error shortly after it was made"... Talk_page_guidelines, a behavior guideline, says "It is best to avoid changing your own comments... Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." the guideline suggests several courses of action, none of which you took originally. It's minutia but you keep insisting you're right yet I'm able to quote guidelines (as opposed to just link to it highhandedly as you do) and show you're wrong. You admit you don't think I know more about Wikipedia policy than you do because I only have 400 edits (or whatever, I don't keep track) but I'm rather sure your assumption is wrong. For someone who demands I assume good faith... where have you assumed good faith? Within 3 comments you've been telling me to grow up and claiming I don't know about Wikipedia guidelines because of my edit count. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you obtusely ignore is the very clear explanation above, including diffs to show that, that what you purport to be a change in comment after you had posted a response occurred because of an edit conflict. That was posted, not as a notice to you, but as an explanation for anyone who would be misled by the posts you've made. As I suggested, it would be helpful for you to learn that such things happen because of the nature of this sort of software. Meanwhile, whether a diff is posted or text is copy and pasted, what you seem to not realize is that the guideline to which you refer is regarding article talk pages. Correcting the post to your user talk page that I made shortly after realizing the script posted the wrong template is not refactoring comments in order to create a deception, but to correct the error and is not covered in guidelines regarding article talk pages. It is quite apparent your primary purpose here is to create conflict rather than to participate in this project in spirit of collaboration. I did tell you to grow up, your posting behavior is childish and focused on oneupmanship rather than communication, attempting to "win" something rather than debate or work toward an improvement of anything. That would explain that of 316 edits to date, 55% of them have been to talk pages of one type or another. You don't know enough about this project to engage in the contentious and disruptive talk posts you've made. I predict you'll end up banned before long. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You don't know enough about this project to engage in the contentious and disruptive talk posts you've made" - uh, what? I don't know enough about Wikipedia to do what you claim I've done? You're now incoherent in addition to being rude... the one with the behavior problem here seems to be you. You've made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith as you write your epic-length replies that show you just can't let this drop. Move on... you "lost" the fight you picked. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Elwood Haynes FAC
Hello, thank you for your thorough review of the prose of Elwood Haynes. I have addressed your comments and fixed most of them. Please check it out when you have a chance. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J's

 * I appreciate your notes regarding the 2SJ wiki page. The trouble is that half the info on the page is nonsense, not to mention that many edits that others have deigned "acceptable" contain things that I personally changed/added! Honestly, all I care about is that anyone out there who wants to learn about the band gets the real info. I don't know the first thing about wiki etiquette (although I'm learning a lot today!), but I do know that the info up there is incorrect and there's MUCH more info that needs posting, much of it in the pre-internet era (ie. impossible to reference a source via a link). Can you help me out here? I've added info to the pre-exisiting page - can you please take a look and let me know your thoughts? At the very least, can we communicate via email (Action2SJ@aol.com) so I don't have to keep coming back here? -=AA, 2SJ --Andyaction (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing and laughable that you & Jexhotwells are completely comfortable with the previous version of the 2 Skinnee J's wikipedia page, the vast majority of which is completely unsourced and erroneous (some completely misleading!). You have made me very sad and have done a great disservice to the band and anyone who cares about the band. With this in mind, why are you not flagging the previous (current, by your decree) entry as unsourced? Most of the info up there was contributed be me anyway. All of it is unverified by Wikipedia's standards, now that I read them. YOU & Jexhotwells WIN! The 2SJ wiki entry is now back to being "pure", complete with errors, misinformation, incomplete discography & no new info for anyone! I lose because I took the time to set it right (for the sake of the fans, the band's legacy and, dare I say, truth and facts!) and have now wasted my time and have a headache! I have been threatened with being banned and I humbly stand down. Victory is yours, Chiliad22 & Jezhotwells! Much love and respect, -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiliad22's response: Look, Wikipedia is a work in progress. But for everyone to be able to work fairly, we need to cite sources... we can't really verify any of the article if it's not referenced to published sources but to your own experiences. You just claiming what is right and what is wrong is a poor way to write an article, we're all basically anonymous here until proven otherwise, and at any rate, like I said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we just summarize what published sources already say about a topic. Everything referenced in the current article are things that newspapers reported about the band. If there are errors, find better sources. I realize it's frustrating... but bear in mind the principles that govern how the article on your band is edited also have to govern articles like Barrack Obama and World War II - this is why we look to published sources, not the opinions of random editors, to decide what can be in a Wikipedia article. --Chiliad22


 * Believe me, I get it. I'm just astonished that you're comfortable with entry as it stands and that you took the time to punish me (or anyone!) for augmenting and/or improving it. Nothing there currently is truly verified, except by a few interview excerpts (one cited twice!) and, in fact, most of the "facts" that are actually true there were added by me and have somehow been approved (and sometimes simply incorporated into previous text!) by you & Jezhotwell, despite not knowing which are true/untrue, verified/unverified, sourced/unsourced! I just find it strange that you (or anyone, quite frankly) can just decide to be the arbiter of what's "sourced" or "verified" when you were no more or less anonymous than I before I began discussing this with you. Most the band's history and popularity took place before the internet age (not many easily found links to "verify") and I don't possess the time or gumption to go digging through microfiche/newspaper archives to prove the details of my career, so like I said - you're argument is right! You win. I took a lot of time and heart to make the wiki entry fun, factual and informative (heaven forbid!), so I'm just bummed out about it. At the very least, give us the respect of leaving the statement from the band posted on the page if you won't let us repair the incomplete discography... -=AA, 2SJ Andyaction (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for TRYING to use sense and logic to gain acceptance of lists of defunct store locations as acceptable contributions to Wikipedia articles. I spent countless hours listing and documenting such locations, only to have them swept away by Schuminweb and others. I agree with the logic you've provided and I believe there is value to understanding the changing retail landscape through individual store histories. There does not seem to be an appreciation for the pre-Macy's world of department store chains. Thanks for trying ...--Pubdog (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic job market
Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

roy martin Middle School
thank you for expanding the article. you did an extremely successful job. Geojust1 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Andyaction - again
FYI: I have posted regarding his comment, "statement" re-added today at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Thunder
I have updated the San Diego Thunder entry. It now includes references to multiple websites that prove the validity of the team. These sites include pages that cover the teams championship games, historical data, highlights, and also validate their league affiliations. I apologize for not posting these references immediately. This is marks the first time I have ever made a wiki entry I have ever made.

This season, the Chargers have given us permission to wear their old powder blue jerseys, which also shows that major organizations within the are are indeed aware of our presence.

Thank you for your patience and guidance.

--Sdthunder (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Mariano Rivera
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have started another nomination for the article Mariano Rivera due to the progress I made in addressing reviewer concerns. You had previously supported the article for FA in the previous nomination and I wanted to contact you to see if you could show your support again in this 2nd nomination. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Middle School
Thanks for your aid in understanding more about how to reference a school. I added a newspaper article to Aberdeen Middle School, but I know that it doesn't receive much attention. Thanks for your attention. RickNightCrawler (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

5 April 2009
Your first edit using this user ID was at 22:35, on 5 April 2009. Do you or have you ever edited under any other user ID? --PBS (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducktown, Atlantic City
No, your argument was fine; it was many of the others that were rather unpersuasive. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series PR
You commented on the 2004 World Series FAC a while back. I've now started PR in the hope of renominating it. See it here. BUC (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Transit Authority of River City
Transit Authority of River City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)