User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive22

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2009-05-01 and 2009-05-31.

Galleri Rom
What is a problem with Galleri Rom?--Rünno (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you or another experienced editor help then. this is ridiculous all this guy is doing is assuming bad faith, nothing i say or do can change that all he wants to do is throw bad faith accusations. I would also like to see if you have a chnce where i do not have that authority from what i have read i do as long as it is used properly.HellinaBucket (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind i see but this is getting out of hand. do something about it.HellinaBucket (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)\

Does this look like a wikibreak?

HellinaBucket, leave me alone. I'm not editing the Operation Repo article (or any article) any longer, you have no reason to contact me, or ask anyone else to contact me on your behalf. The way that I met you was by catching you in the act of vandalism, and your initial response was to repeat the vandalism. It's true that you were able to get me angry enough for Orangemike to feel that I deserved a mild warning, but don't let that embolden you. The fact that you have abstained from vandalism for a few days, does not mean that you are not a vandal, and your taking offense to my using the word vandal in reference to you is unwarranted, such use does not constitute a personal attack. You are a vandal. You committed vandalism, you repeated that vandalism, and it's only been a few days since then; it doesn't wear off that quickly. I would not do this exactly the same way if I had it to do over again, but my goal was to stop you, and everyone else, from vandalizing the Operation Repo article, I feel confident that I have succeed, and I feel that the allegations of me over-stepping the guidelines in my ferocity of dealing with you are both mild and debatable. It is an added bonus, that it seems you have chosen to become a responsible editor, and I, once again, thank-you for all of the things you do which make you an effective editor. HellinaBucket, your account is only a month old, why don't you just throw it away and make a new one? There's nothing wrong with that as long as you honestly intend to be a responsible editor from here on out (If you want to be extra careful that you are following the guidelines to the letter, read WP:SOCK, but the basic idea, is that making a second account is wrong if you are doing for it the wrong reasons. If you just want to change your name, or if you are embarrassed about something you did as a beginning editor that you are not going to do again, then that's fine.). Whether or not you get a new account, there is no reason for you to contact me. I began editing Operation Repo while I was checking the recent changes for vandals. I continued to monitor it because the vandalism had been common before I was able to get the article protected. Other than that I have no interest in that subject.VegKilla (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) HellinaBucket (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be the fourth or fifth time he has accused me of creating a new ACCT. BAD FAUTH AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. THAT IS CRAPHellinaBucket (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to enjoy my vacation, but I couldn't resist pointing out that Anden is a brand new user. The "over the top" language above could be Hellina arguing with themself or it could be anyone. Personally, I do not trust anyone trying to edit this article who created their account after the article was protected. Also, the first sentence of the article has issues with tense.VegKilla (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I adamatly deny HellinaBucket's allegations of me "still directing personal attacks." The only thing HellinaBucket said above that was true is that I have respect for Orangemike's opinion, and I have no respect for HellinaBucket's warnings because not only did HellinaBucket initially leave me a level 4 warning (skipping levels 1-3), but also I meet HellinaBucket by catching them in the act of vandalism (I don't think anyone would respect warnings left by a 20-day old account who is responding to being warned for vandalism, came close to violating the three-revert-rule, and is skipping the first 3 warnings).VegKilla (talk) (THIS VANDALISM WAS BRINGING THE ARTICLE WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF WIKIPEDIA BTW.HellinaBucket (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

i'M SORRY TO HAVE YOU DRUG INTO THIS BUT I'VE TRIED PLAYING NICE AND ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS CONTINUIE ATTACKING.HellinaBucket (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) EITHER WAY I'M TIRED OF HIS CRAP. ORANGMIKE TRIED TO WARN HIM I'VE TRIED TO WARN HIM AnD HE'S HIDING UNDER THE WIKIBREAK THING. HE ERASES THE WARNINGS LEFT SO I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT TO DO NOW.HellinaBucket (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank-you Cobaltbluetony for taking your time to help with this issue. Although I want nothing to do with this, and in an attempt to avoid accusations, have stop editing all articles, and removed myself from all discussions, I do realize that this concerns my reputation, and so I want to make sure you know that despite the fact that I am attempting to take a break, I am still making myself available to answer any questions that you or anyone else may have.  Thank-you again for spending time on this issue.   VegKilla (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

tHIS IS A COPY OF THE PERSONAL ATTACK GUIDKLINES....Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users. tHERE IS EVIDENCE SHOWN ABOVE THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THAT CLAUSEHellinaBucket (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I apoligize wasn't meant that way at all.HellinaBucket (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(For your future consideraqtion.)

This is what i've tried to do throughout the entire process.

I would prefer to work with you for a solution then work against you. I suggested something in the talk page maybe you would be willing to help me on it. If we can get this changed tocomply with wikipedia policies we'll both be better off. if you can do this i'll happily take my warning from your page because the article wil be fixed and we'll both like it.HellinaBucket (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats where you misunderstand I don't want to win anything. UI want to help make this a better place. I recently had a disagreement with someone else similar to this for the same problems and ultimately that person was right. If there isn't a source we shouldn't add it as it debases wiki value. So what i suggested is we make a subheading under criticisms and have a disclaimed that reality tv is only as real as it is edited. cmon work with me to get the articlein line with the policies. we can get all that other crap removed about the nuetraility.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you, if you do have some suggestions let me know so we can make sure your contributions are included too, like OrangeMike says we need you and lots like you.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what I've been trying but he till wants to accuse of sock puppetry and bad faith. What would you suggest as the best way to handle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You see how long his wikibreak actually lasted? not even past the first day. Sorry had to point that out because he's hiding behind that.ROFLHellinaBucket (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the remark is somewhat inflammatory but he put that wiki break thing on on April 30th and been active ever since.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To be on a break would mean a break away. not to continue bad mouthing other editors and assuming bad faith. doesn't look like any break i've ever seen, maybe yo've seen one or two like it, but i haven't.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think he's still complying with his break read thisstraight from the hordses mouth and you tell me. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that you left me a warning. I am taking an indefinite wikibreak because of it. This is just too much for me. I work hard to remove vandalism and to avoid controversial edits.

Please be more careful in the future when taking sides. You can read my response to your warning on my talk page.

The reason this is so troubling to me is that you are a respected editor, and I used to be so proud of my professionalism as an editor.

I will log in occasionally to check my messages and make sure that my user page has not been vandalized, so I will eventually get a message if you leave it, but I am taking a long break from editing articles.VegKilla (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to continue editing the Fareportal entry I was working on. I wasn't finished yet! Cheapoair (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandals
I am not supporting vandalism only pointing out that saying you are nothing but a vandal is very inflammatory and makes the situation worse. Consider how upset that person is, a little politeness can only help and if not you can at least say I tried.HellinaBucket (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this does make more sense. My next question is why would it be wrong to sympathize that a user has been blocked? Sympathizing doesn't mean you thnk that the policies weren't broken only that they are in a frustrating situation and sometimes a kind word is enough to turn it around. Or is there further thngs I did not see?HellinaBucket (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SCFX
You appear to have in effect locked me out of the article while I was trying to improve it by adding an under-construction banner. I will return when the banner is removed, but if this is a deletionist tactic to prevent article improvement, it will be so noted in future discussions. I am aware of the criteria for notability, but when an article must "assert its subject's notability", it does not do so by stating one of the criteria. Barack Obama, for example, asserts its notability by stating that the subject is President of the United States, among other distinctions, not by stating the the subject has "received significant coverage... independent of the subject" or other criteria listed in the general criteria link you provided me. I point this out just so that you understand the difference between assertion of notability and criteria therefor. Robert K S (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing criteria for inclusion, which is what you appear to be arguing. I'm talking about assertion of notability, for lack of which an article may be speedy deleted.  If you placed the tag for my benefit, you didn't make any effort to notify me as such.  I came to the article to see a message telling me "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed".  Thanks for clearing it up. Robert K S (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to be confused about what I'm referring to, I direct you to Speedy_Delete #7, the relevant excerpt of which reads, "An article about ... an organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. ... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The language as it is now distinguishes "importance" from "notability", but I aver this distinction is relatively new and "assertion of notability" is still the working shorthand when speaking of speedy deletion candidates. Robert K S (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you persist in posting to my talk page even after I have pointed you to the applicable guideline and excerpted it for you in clear language. The article is not a proper candidate for speedy deletion.  And of course the first instance of any notable thing or class of things has some element of notability--don't be ridiculous. Robert K S (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He says you've locked him out because you've added an template to it, which says "please refrain from editing.  Don't think you meant to do that.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/SCFX‎, cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another pair of socks?

 * Nicholsy & Nicholsy2

First user is indefinitely blocked and edited 'superheros' also. Not sure if they are related but the mentality displayed by Nich43 reminds me of this Nicholsy and may be socks. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowAssessmentMonkey
Hello Mr Cobaltbluetony.

In light of your block, I'm writing to inform you that YellowAssessmentMonkey is an alternative account of YellowMonkey (formerly Blnguyen).You could check the deleted history of the page User:YellowAssessmentMonkey for YellowMonkey's confirmation.

I think the recent dicussions which was made by YellowAssessmentMonkey are humorous and somewhat off-wiki rather than a personal attack which led to your block. Thanks--Amore Mio (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have blocked but since you have given no reason I have unblocked. Happy to listen to an explanation if you have one. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I look into it, the more I see your block as an abuse of the admin tools. I am now distinctly interested to see your reasoning behind the block with a lot more information than "see contribs & user talk page history". -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was any lasting harm done. I must admit I was more than a bit curious to see why you had indef. blocked an account belonging to a former ArbCom member without warning and denied the account access to its talk page and to email. My initial thoughts was that you were a "rogue admin" or your account was compromised. However, I looked through your logs and contributions and you seemed entirely sensible. The one thing I did not consider it that you thought YellowAssessmentMonkey was a hijack or stalker account but looking at it from another point of view, I can see how you would have come to that conclusion. :-)

YAM is, of course, YM's alternate account. "Silly Hilditch" is an attack, not on an editor but on the Head of the Selection Panel of the Australia national cricket team, Andrew Hilditch (who is indeed a silly man). YM also writes a cricket blog for the online version of Mint, a Indian newspaper in collaboration the Wall St Journal. His major focus lately has been the Indian Premier League. His blog can be found here.

As I unfortunately find out every time I take a cricket article to FAC, cricket is a sport heavy in jargon that can be incomprehensible to the North American reader. As such we cricket fans can somtimes talk in "shorthand" to each other that can look like gibberish to those not in the "know". You have my assurances that YM (or his alternate account) is not making any personal attacks or participating in vandalism. Thanks for getting back to me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mattinbgn and actually I had no clue I was blocked at all as I hadn't checked the Userpages part of my watchlist for over a day! Not a problem at all.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Young
I'm curious why you moved Frederick Young to Frederick Young (Ghurkha Regiment), since there are no other articles titled Frederick Young, I dont understand why disambiguation is necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete Outdated Entries Please!
Keir Stahlsmith (deleted 21 Feb 2008 at 15:17) From Deletionpedia Revision as of 14:02, 21 February 2008 by Cobaltbluetony (Talk) (diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff) Jump to: navigation, search 21 February 2008 This page was deleted after a proposed deletion tag was added. The reason given was “non-notable individual, twice speedied before; horribly biased tone; no factual notability”.

Please secure privacy and delete archived information about this individual. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gangs
Please know that I was immediately put on the defensive and kept there by wiki editors. As earlier explained, I read other entries before proceeding and innocently attempted to do as they did (e.g. Gang, Columbine Massacre). I still believe the block was a one-sided application. Be that as it may, I have spoken with the co-author re: your contacting him but FYI, the material is mine as is the book. I may attempt to comply with requirements for inclusion at a later time. I do appreciate your latter attempts at understanding the importance of a subject that structurally places each child of color behind the eight ball from birth. Sincerely, Stevonmfl (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gangs
Thank you for noting the importance of this issue. However, Im not really interested in martyrdom and have buried too many children of color over my career to waste valuable time and energy in non-productive endeavors. I like Pres. Obama's results based orientation. That is how I was able to make the changes that remain state of the art in dealing with gangs. Many have said to "wait" or to "just be patient" and ask, "why are you (your people) so angry?". Now these persons are being moved to the side of the road so real work can get done. One primary reason there have not been societal, structural changes over past decades is due to those gatekeepers who say to "be patient" as we bury our children and family members. And law enforcement "experts" that society has placed to manage this social malady support this do-nothing approach.

"Waiting for the world to change" ain't gonna cut it. Therefore, my persistence which perhaps is interpreted by some as antagonistic. I did not seek it but became a top national expert on community violence, esp gang violence...and one of a very few looking beyond the obvious numbers you cite. I have been on TV from Nightline to Geraldo and in Newsweek, Time, People, the LA Times, NY Times, etc. etc. and actually left the work in 1993 (LA Times Metro 2/14/93). Over the past decade or so I have developed critical information that will shake the rafters (and the foundations of community violence).

If you ever get around to reviewing the Columbine Massacre edits maybe you will observe the perenial double standard that is obvious to those of us who must constantly provide additional "proof" for validation of our expertise. I tried to provide critical education here and have of course been put off, and for "good" reason. I have been successful if success is saving lives and changing systems. I have a few more breakthroughs to disclose and then the next generations will have a solution oriented foothold to continue those changes. And the folklore based "causes" and punitive "solutions" currently accepted will go by the wayside. Nothing and no one will be able to stop that.Stevonmfl (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking...there are numerous citations in news articles and other author's books (on Amazon) that quote me as an expert and/or my work. If I gather these how can they be used to expedite the placing of new and critical knowledge and information in wiki? What else would be needed at this point? We (a few scientists, scholars) will be announcing major breakthroughs early next year. These will add to new info but would like to begin the process asap.Stevonmfl (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed (New Creation Church, Singapore)
Dear Sir,

Thank you for making yourself available for help thru our talk page. We would like you to visit our Wiki (New Creation Church Singapore) and had a look at it.

Recently we encountered problem with this Wiki entry and having a kind of revert war going on, especially pertaining to our Senior Pastor's portion.

Please advise us on the content (you may do so by checking the history) on what should remain and what should not. As you are the administrator of Wikipedia, we will trust your professionalism in this area and should you choose to assist us to edit the entry, we will gladly take whatever you post as the final say.

God bless you richly, NCC Web Team

Nccwebmaster (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice I am not sure how the code works
Star trek film rumours and gossip as it look currently looks sloppy the information is there which is verifiable from it's website but the title is not very good could you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 07:30, May 19, 2009

TradeRoots Article
Cobaltbluetony, Thank you for you response, I will adress the problems you have found with my article and after reading the several content policies I now understand what needs to be corrected and I will certainly make the necessary changes. Also, I will change my username and I give you my word that the new TradeRoots page will be 100% neutral, informative and have no promotional tone. I ask you to please undelete this article so that I can make these changes and write an article that will enhance you site. Traderoots (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC))


 * From what I can tell, the TradeRoots program likely would not meet the verifiability requirements with reliable sources that discuss the organization in a non-trivial way:
 * Google search +TradeRoots +Commerce
 * Google News search +TradeRoots
 * Google Scholar search +TradeRoots +Commerce
 * If you can find good sources outside of United States Chamber of Commerce websites that directly highlight Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations, plese feel free to recreate the title with better wording and references. (See Citing sources for assistance.) Otherwise, some mention of the program might be acceptable for the United States Chamber of Commerce article, buit again, it wqould require good references. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Bongo matic  22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009 ‎
I apologize for my poor editing on this page. Rather than bungling more than I already have done, I am writing to request that you correct my errors.Historicist (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Message you left
on my talk page was probably for someone else, you may wish to remove it from my talk page and put it on theirs. Drawn Some (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Error?
Hey, I was wondering what I did wrong with those AfD links I put in the log, partially since the log seems to have been growing out of all sides all day (rather than everything going at the start or end). I -have- marked the pages in question for notability issues...I've just been having trouble getting the entry format right, that's all.Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for the correction. I'm still in that comedy-of-errors stage in dealing with the various wiki commands, so thanks for the hand.Tyrenon (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PDF
Hi, Cobaltbluetony. I'm an Italian user of Wikipedia and I found that some int'l wikies have the "PDF version" option in the toolbox. Some time ago, we checked how to add this feature even on it.wiki, and it seemed that it was to be something like an "automatic upgrade". A couple of months have passed without news. Do you know something about the development of this project or, in alternative, can you direct me to someone who's involved ? Thanks alot... --Webwizard (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Username block / forced change of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
Sorry to barge in, I have this user watchlisted for some reason. The thing is, this is a recurring issue, and this user is actually prohibited from changing his username per a previous AN/I unban decision - see This An/I decision as well as User talk:Anthony.bradbury for the previous incident of the same nature, and User:Eliz81/RMS which lists out the conditions, in particular clause 9. Regards,

A talk page stalker :) MLauba (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

THANKS
Thanks for acting so quickly. I understand the problem, because you aren't the first editor or admin to advise that I change the username, which I would be more than willing and happy to do, but I don't think that I am permitted to do so. Maybe I could make a formal request at WP:ANI. Thanks again. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the terms still apply, since six months already passed. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the speedily saving Gospel hospital from the AfD. Keep up the good job.--Caspian blue 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)