User talk:Colincbn/Archive 1

私の会話ページにようこそ
ご興味があれば私の利用者ページをごらんください —Colincbn 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Richthofen
Regarding your interest in the issue, you may be interested in following this thread. I have put together my take on the attribution issue and am currently waiting for a reply from Clawson, so that we can go back to the Richthofen talk page and figure out a suitable solution together, build a consensus and finally get this over with. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put my proposal here, waiting for ideas and hopefully consensus.—KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied your comment at Richthofen talk. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Buddhism
Thanks for fixing the image. (I've been missing the Buddha for some time :-) ). Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ==

MvR history
Weird indeed. I have no idea what happened, thanks for letting me know. I'm going to delete that contested paragraph, as we seem to still be forming consensus (to which I'd appreciate your input). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied at Richthofen talk. Later today, I'm also going to do the archiving, unless you're particularly keen on that job :) —KNcyu38 (talk •contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put together a revised version of the proposal and notify you as soon as I'm done. Thanks a lot for your input. —KNcyu38 (talk •contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have reinstated an extended variant of the paragraph including both sources. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources.

For now my focus is mostly for the articles on Oh My Goddess! (ああっ女神さまっ, Aa! Megami-sama!). More specifically articles on the featured list "List of Oh My Goddess episodes". I want to start with the article You're a Goddess?.

A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition. See: Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes

If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.

-- Cat chi? 10:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NIBB-logo.svg)
 Thanks for uploading File:NIBB-logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Nins logo.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:Nins logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Skier Dude ►  02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can always tag an image like that as db-g7 which puts it into the speedy deletion queue.  Skier Dude ►  05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sarlaac
The issues I listed are available through the articlehistory template at Talk:Sarlacc/GA1. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyrights
I've deleted those images you placed in Neocortex. If you look here, they are explicitly stating that a copyright exists on the images they use on the site. You'll have to get them to change that notice before uploading any more images, or get them to send an email to OTRS releasing the images under a proper license. In that case, you would upload them to Commons rather than here. Let me know if you have any questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the info. We can't change the license on our images until they do, otherwise it is a copyright violation. It sounds like you gave them the right info. If they say the images are allowed to be used for free, educational purposes, we can't use them. The free licenses we use allow people to re-purpose the image for whatever they want, including commercial purposes, as long as they provide attribution and don't try to claim copyright. On Commons, if you upload a file, there is a field you can fill in for "Permission". It tells you what to put if permission is pending, and gives you the e-mail address for OTRS. That is just a mailbox where certain people monitor image permissions among other things. So, if they don't want to change the notice on their web site, you can have them send an e-mail to OTRS specifying the proper license. That way, you can upload the images to Commons while you're waiting. Hope that makes sense. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks in WP:EIW
Yes, it's okay to remove any redlinks; in fact, this is highly advisable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

heterogenous
You claim to be fixing typos, but this is not a typo: see discussion on Polymorphism (biology) talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A very good point. I suggest you take it up with the team at AWB, as even if I was to undo my edit the next time anyone else using AWB browsed the page it would simply get changed back again. Also it should be noted in this context the word is clearly being used as an (acceptable) alternate spelling ofheterogeneous and not as heterogenous as used in genetics, which actually has a slightly different meaning. Colincbn (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Monty Hall problem
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by theMediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


 * Mediation is getting underway. Do you have Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem on your watch list? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken GIFs
Hi. I really appreciate your trying to solve that problem with the NURBS animation. I answered your question over on Commons but this will be a more complete explanation. In short, the volunteer developers tried to solve a problem with GIFs and how our 120-pixel thumbnails are generated and bit off a bit more than they could chew. All GIFs that, when you multiplied all their frames by their frame size and the resulting product was greater than 12.5 pixels, broke. I was torqued because I take great care to make my animations compact. You can read a lengthier technical explanation here at the user talk page of someone who had a hand in this. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Game theoretic Monty Hall problem solution
Hi - Just FYI. I chased down the "offer Monty a reward and the probability of winning by switching is 1/2" bit in the article to this edit made by User:Dean P Foster who is apparently a statistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Economics. I've asked on his talk page for a reference. He's not very active, so if he doesn't respond I'll follow up with an email. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackash sandbox
Hi Colincbn, and thanks, that would be great if you would fix my typos Blackash   have a chat 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you have definitely improved the flow of text and made it more readable then it was. People are always asking us about the methods of shaping trees. Blackash  have a chat 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Iceland
G'day. Could you please read my edit summary on Iceland? Best regards,Hayden120 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hayden120 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD(talk) 13:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

tree shaping discussion
Hi Colincbn, I'm just letting you know I replied on my talk page, to your comment. Blackash  have a chat 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, replied on my talk again. Blackash   have a chat 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture
If there is any “wiki-legal” way to re-open the proposal to change the title of the article about arborsculpture to “Arborsculpture” that is exactly what we should so. THIS is the verifiable, written evidence I would have introduced had the debate not closed so quickly. --Griseum (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Colincdn, the discussion that never really happened was, "What if anything other than arborsculpture, should the page be titled? Somehow we would need to go back to the original title, so can we have that discussion. Is that what you'r thinking? Slowart (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation resumes
The mediation of the Monty Hall problem case has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard tries to cut the crap
Hi Colincbn, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture naughtiness
I posted again on my page, and also on the Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make you happier to post on Wikipedia. If I am unable to meet you respectfully, another offer I can make is to delete what I have written, but I did make my best attempt to engage your arguments thoughtfully. I want you to enjoy the time you spending contributing to Wikipedia. Please be direct in telling me how I can do this, if I should behave differently. Also, I will be away from Wikipedia for a while, so I may not be able to reply quickly. Blue Rasberry 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am respectfully extricating myself from the arborsculpture business, but I was just requested to comment in a passage where someone called someone elsenaughty. I had nothing to do with this and do not support the use of that word!  I want to apologize to you again regarding that discussion we had.  You obviously are a thoughtful editor and it is clear to me now that I misunderstood you and that you did nothing wrong.  For my part I did not intend to do anything wrong, but I should not have called you "naughty" and you took it badly when I never expected to offend you at all.  I am sorry, and I am writing now just to offer closure to all this. Blue Rasberry  16:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

yubimoji
Thanks for the nudge! I felt under appreciated, so I sort of slowed down adding the final yubimoji pictures. It takes work, and I started on it years ago and I am almost done, so I should finish up. Last time I looked there were no free license pictures for yubimoji, so thats why I was making my own. And besides, a uniform "same image" look would be best in my opinion. So I'll make it my goal to finish up next time I have a few days off (thats a few days from now!), I can do it! If I don't, feel free to push me more... but I can do it!! haha Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Elfquest
Well how cool is that, I always felt that elfquest had a Japanese flavour to the art work. Not sure why maybe the hair or that fact they wear real clothes instead of colored body suits. As to Redlance in a coma are you talking about when the whole tribe goes into wrap stuff to wait out the years in the dream time series? Blackash  have a chat 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose it wasn't really a "coma", but he goes into shock after the fight to protect the children in the go-backs cave during the first series. It's the scene where he tells Nightfall his soulname. I always looked at it as a result of him using his power, which he had always used to help things grow and flourish, as a weapon.
 * By the way if you do not know already Wendy and Richard Pini put all the Elfquest books online for free here. Just one more reason why they are two of the best people on earth. Colincbn (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep I know the scene, I always remember the way Nightfall is holding him and how the blood is running across his nose, it's a powerful drawing. Thanks for the link, I did know about it but glad you pass it on anyway. I plan on doing some editing on the elfquest pages soon, as you pointed out they did need some TLC. Blackash   have a chat 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

yo
What are my grammatical errors? I'm just curious.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am traveling right now and have limited access to the web so please give me to Monday (Japan time). But in the meantime let me say the first thing that jumped out at me was the bit I referenced in the SPI: "always removes much information", is really weird to me. I can see how JFK could have just copy-pasted that around afterwards which is one of the main things I saw as a red flag.


 * On a somewhat separate point, even if those particular accounts are in fact other users it still seems there are multiple users logging in from your PC (or the PC you use the most anyway). If they are other accounts of yours I suggest you list them on the SPI page, add "inactive" tags to them and no longer log in as them. I saw that some of them have edited the same pages and talk pages. This is considered an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. By listing and then no longer using them I hope you can avoid any admin actions against you.


 * If they are the accounts of other people who simply use the same machine this can still be seen as "Meatpuppetry", which is considered just as bad as sockpuppetry. The best way to avoid sanctions if this is the case is to detail the situation (roommates, same school, or whatever) and then avoid editing the same pages unless you make the situation clear on the pages you all edit. If you do that I think the admins will be more willing to assume good faith. Colincbn (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Home again?
Hello Colincbn, I've read your words:  So in my mind the MHP is not at heart a "math problem" but is in fact a "psychology problem". – And that's exactly the way I am feeling, and also some of us, too. Would be great if you could join in again in "Next Steps", would be fine. Kind regards, -- Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with encyclopedic style
Colincbn, I've replied in Naming of art form and I would like your help with the rewording of that section. I go into more detail on the talk page. Thanks Blackash   have a chat 03:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Colincbn, could you please put the text up (about naming of art form), I've added the text to the talk page. I would be happy to add the refs back after you put the text up. Also are you still taking the usage of the term Arborsuclpture to the mediation committee? Blackash   have a chat 05:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Committee
Colincbn I've noticed you seem to be busy with other things at the moment. I've commented on the talk page asking if anyone else wants to start the process. I could do so but not until next week. If you do have the time please go to the mediation committee about the use of the word arborsculpture. Blackash  have a chat 10:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice RE: Sep. 2010 SPI filing
Hello Colincbn, I just wanted to let you know that an SPI case that you filed in September has now been merged into the casepage of an older puppetmaster (see here). The puppetmaster Dr90s has been active at Wikipedia for some time now and he has proven to have an obnoxiously high rate of recidivism. This being the case, I think it wise to spread the information that this problem editor is known to return to his favorite kinds of articles again and again under new sockpuppets. I feel that the more editors that are aware of this character the easier he will be to identify and stop in the future. If you have any suspicions regarding this guy in the future, I'd also be glad to give my opinion as I am quite familiar with him by now. Thanks for your help in this matter and please keep this issue in mind. Cheers.-Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My Reply
Apropos your message, I have this to reply. The rules and policies in place at WP that must be followed should be followed by all  users  with out any discrimination and not just imposed on one of  them  in order for the site to function. This is exactly what I explained to Abecedare. It was just and reasonable, but then, why was it rebuked byAbecedare? If he is an Indian, I understand that if he has to retain his position in Wikipedia as an administrator, he has to besubservient which is a sine qua non! I was not appealing the block, but I wascontesting it, since I have been accused of causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash with out at all the accusation being substantiated though every thing is logged in Wikipedia! Why was it hard for those  deceitful administrators to understand me when I state that the onus is on those who accuse  me of causing disruption to establish  with evidence that is  borne out by records  as every thing is logged in Wikipedia? I literally got my fingers burnt in my endeavour to get them to substantiate their allegation! And if you are honest and go through my discussion Page, you will find that I did write a short, simple reflection on  “your own actions”, and  on  “what you can do to help the project along”.

You can show your good faith and bona fides by restricting the block to the article on Hindutash since the block pertains to causing disruption and slow edit-warring atHindutash till the issue therein  is resolved. Now I have been blocked from even editing my own discussion pagecantankerously by Toddst1. The ball is in their court. I hadexplicitly expressed my willingness to coordinate for the purpose of creating an informative and neutral article which wasdevoid of bias.

I have been already indefinitely blocked on the basis of unsubstantiated  sweeping allegations. Now what about the taking of action against inter alia  YellowMonkey or  Fowler&fowler for their various substantiateddisruptive  acts?

You did not understand anything? Never mind!! Hindutashravi —Preceding unsigned comment added by59.92.20.145 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kunaicho image
Colincbn -- Your collaborative help is appreciated. Please see diff here and here and here. Your reasoning was clear and the responses to your words were better than expected. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the habit of taking WP discussions to other venues, but I just wanted to make it clear that I was in no way suggesting that WP:NFCC requires non-free images to be the subject of articles themselves. Just that, because of its wording, its omission would be detrimental to that understanding and in combination with WP:NFCC#1, it effectively requires images themselves to be subjects of discussion/notoriety/controversy/whathaveyou. Because any image that simply illustrates or supports the text would be redundant in the information it provides. To use an image I've uploaded as an example, this photograph was at the center of a controversy because it was one of the very few images, moving or still, that clearly showed Maradona touching the ball with his hand and became a symbol of Argentine defiance in the wake of the Falklands War (though the latter aspect isn't mentioned in the article). There doesn't seem to be any sort of discussion around the image itself, but simply the act of an imperial family member speaking in JSL. And yes, sign language is a visual language that can't be expressed with written text, but you don't need a non-free image to express that. Of course, WP:NFCC#8 tends to be the most contentious of the criteria because it's open-ended and rolls in several policies (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NFCC#1 are implied), so we'll always have disagreements about contextual significance of some images. --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And just to make my response even longer than it needs to be, I think the thing to keep in mind is that WP:NFCC is restrictive and exclusionary by design. It's meant in part to keep the use of non-free content to a minimum, so the bias will inevitably lean towards deletion. --Mosmof (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI (Dr90s)
Hi, Colincbn. I opened a SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s. Your comments or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo's of Reames tree work
[]Slowart (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note in the list of pictures 3, 5, and the last image were created by Axel Erlandson. These images shouldn't be used to represent any of the methods as Axel never told anyone how he trained the trees. This is stated in multiple published sources. Being considered the world leading expert by our peers, IMO Axel's trees are unachievable using Richard Reames's method. Two reasons So it would not be appropriate to use an artist's trees to represent a method when there is no information on which method they used to create their trees. Blackash  have a chat 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) We can create any of Axel's trees if we wanted to, so I believe Axel most likely shaped trees using a gradual method.
 * 2) Richard has been bending trees for 19 years, the bench and the peace sign are his best pieces. Which are no where near the standard of Axel's trees. The reason for this is his shaping method.
 * If that is the case I would have to agree with you. Colincbn (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Colincbn, I feel like I'm being stalked and defamed. My photo contrabution list containes photos you requested. I assumed you noticed the tree work created by Reames and not confuse it with Erlandson's. My methods over 19 years are not in some kind of box that excludes this "gradual shaping". This tree []was grown by Reames, as was this tree  neither of these trees fit in the category of "Manual Tree shaping". If you would like my help in improving the article or any other article please ask @ my talk page.Slowart (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Slowart, we were discussing replacing the image that represents your published method on the tree shaping article. And the last image doesn't state it Axel Erlandson's until you go to image file, so I pointed out which are Axel's trees in the list. So are you stating these two images,  are not suitable to be used to represent your published method? That ok. Your best pieces are the bench and the peace sign, you have stated this in lots of places for the peace sign and I'm assuming the bench is also because of the prominence you give it in your book, publicity and website. Both of these pieces were created using your published method. The bench photos are 10 years out of date and the peace sign in 6 years out of date, how about taking a photo of either of these pieces now and give that to wikipedia? If you do, I would be willing to remove the background and that could be up as the representation of first method on tree shaping.  Blackash   have a chat 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Removeal of Cited Content
Hi Colincbn, I've asked you to replace the cited content, I've given my reasoning on the talk page. Blackash  have a chat 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've asked you a question on the tree shaping talk page. Blackash  have a chat 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've rebutted some of your comments on the talk page, in short are you going to put references and cite content back? Blackash  have a chat

Hi, I've comment again. I've also listed on the ANI about the removal of referenced/cited text. Blackash  have a chat 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Working towards compromise
Hi, I've made a short comment on my talk. I've also copied your last paragraph of your comment from my talk page to the tree shaping talk page and replied to the content there. Blackash  have a chat 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi I've replied on my talkpage with, Yep you can take that from my comment. Blackash  have a chat 08:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning vandals
Please sign your warnings - this allows to see who (and most importantly when) gave them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaahhhhghhhh!!!!! There is nothing left but Seppuku for me now.... (This is a joke, I will not be cutting open my belly) Colincbn (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

JFD
Please review my edit here. Is there a better way to establish a context for this? --Tenmei (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior
Colincbn, you lied on the tree shaping talk page, there are 3 factual mistakes and you are taking advantage of the fact I’m limiting my comments on articles’ talk page due to the issues raised at my topic banning here and after. You are well aware that I suggested only replying to any editor, twice on any given issue. (You have actual spoken to other editors about my self-imposed comment limit.) Yet when I asked you to take the discussion to my talk page, you  turned around lied, made misleading comments and asked me a question. All to try and engage me on the discussion page. As you know if something is not replied to, it is assumed its because it can’t be rebutted. You know for a fact that I haven’t contested all your edits on Tree shaping and by you accusing me of doing so, makes me seem unreasonable a specially if I don’t rebut your claims. If you lie like this again I will revoke my limit on commenting. I’ll ask you again to go to my talk page, if you are really interested what my reply is to your comments and your question. Blackash  have a chat 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First off please assume good faith, in spite of our different opinions there is no reason for you to say I have "lied". The truth is I was not counting your responses and I would have no problem if you responded on the talk page. I have never had a problem with you giving your opinions. Also just because you have decided not to post more than twice does not mean everyone else must. The way I see it your topic ban is enough, if you want to post in talk all day long I wont mind. Of course Martin might but that is for him to decide, if you remember I voted against his proposal for a full topic ban.


 * The place to have discussions on content is the talk page of the article in question, not your user page. Go ahead and comment there if you have something to say, that's what it is there for.


 * Also I must admit that I was getting a bit frustrated when I said "every change I make", certainly you have not complained when I simply fixed a typo or whatever. But the heart of my statement still stands. On any change to wording I have made you have objected. If you step back and accept that I am not "out to get you" you will see that all of them have simply been copyedits that improve the flow of the article, or increase the accuracy of statements. I am not trying to push an agenda or any of the other things you and Sydney have accused me of. In fact I reverted when Duff removed the word Pooktre from the lead last week.


 * And please don't accuse me of lying here again. If this continues I will start an ANI and ask that you be banned from my talk page for harassment. Colincbn (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Colincbn breath deeply. Your efforts on the page are appreciated. It has been awhile since we looked up the references that allowed the word Pooktre in the lead. ALL of them were found to be unreliable sources according to the noticeboard consensus. Please realize the art is NOT refered to as Pooktre any more reliably than the whole art is referred to as Arborsmith or Arborsmithing. Apparently a press release from "friends of tel-aviv university" released a widely circulated and copied piece that included Pooktre as an alternative name for the art, probably due to this long smoldering edit war. Slowart (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Slowart I hope your are willing to back up your comments about noticeboards with links and diffs, as I seem to remember the discussions quite differently. Also the press release was online quite a while (August 21, 2008) before the article name change (10 January 2009) . Blackash   have a chat


 * You think Pooktre is the correct name for the whole art? Really? Or just somebody's mistake that your happy to go with? Slowart (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as Pete and myself are concerned Pooktre relates to our trees. When media contact us about using our photos we ask them to call our trees Pooktre. As SilkTork pointed out, it is not about how we use the word that matters, it is how the outside world is using it and that is what wikipedia reflects. The press release is not the only one to use pooktre as a generic name, there is the large Chinese newspaper which ran a three page feature on the whole art and used pooktre generically throughout. As you know there are places on the web that have used pooktre generically, not based on the press release. Blackash   have a chat 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Press release and web sites and interviews with your home town paper are not reliable sources and should not remain on the page. Only sources where reliable fact checking takes place will hold up in the long run. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Mistakes by the press, exploited by you here should not be included in the article. Slowart (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Colincbn maybe you should have taken your own advice about good faith. As to the 2 reply comment I was in no way expecting any other editor to do this. If you had only commented about content I wouldn't have make any reply at all. But you chose to comment about how you think I'm reacting to you and your edits. The right place to bring up this type of comments is the editor's talk page. Unless you are looking for input from other editors and if that is the case I believe wikipedia has steps to follow to do so.


 * The other thing you did was ask me a question in spite of my comment quote "if you want more clarification please bring it up on my talk page" and with your knowledge about my self imposed limitation, I felt that this was a bit rude. Comment to your hearts content on the talk page but please in future when I state in my comment "for further clarification ask on my talk page" or something along those lines, ask the questions you want to ask me about that issue on my talk.


 * Let's address your comment quote "How about this: I get the feeling you have determined that every change I make is part of some plot to get the article name changed and therefore fight each and every one regardless of what they are." when I objected you clarify with quote "Also I must admit that I was getting a bit frustrated when I said "every change I make, certainly you have not complained when I simply fixed a typo or whatever. But the heart of my statement still stands. On any change to wording I have made you have objected." As to the "regardless of what they are" this is not true, not even a quarter of your edits have I contest or questioned your changes. The last sentence of the 2nd quote is also factual mistake, in your recent editing there have been multiple edits where I haven't questioned or contested your word changes. Read on for details.


 * Looking at your edits from 8 March 2011 till your comment on the talk page diff 02:01, 20 April 2011 (this list of edits below is the most recent lot of your edits on tree shaping article) Out of 21 edits I've queried 1 and contested 3.
 * The one I queried about removing content discussion
 * The three I contested, changing tree to plant diff in discussion the other two contested edits are related as both where about removing Arborsculpture  discussion and  discussion.

Out of the 17 edits left 12 where not just copy editing, Links
 * edited pooktre section
 * changed instant to manual
 * instant to manual
 * editing Tree shaping in fiction and art section
 * removal of content
 * removing sentence
 * adding refs
 * adding pooktre back into the lead
 * revert back to manual
 * how about this method
 * putting woody plants back
 * desired result

So to sum up:- 21 of your edits have 12 of your contributing edits not even questioned/contested by me. I've questioned or contested 4 of your edits, which is about a fifth of your edits. Maybe you can now understand why I used such a strong term as lying. I feel part of the problem was you should have address your issues about me to me on my talk page and not on an article talk page. If in future you endeavor not to exaggerate to such large extremes I will endeavor not to use such a strong term as lying about your comments. Blackash  have a chat 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a native speaker of English yes? Then I assume you know what the term "I get the feeling " means, yes? So all the math you just did was a giant waste of your, and my, time. No matter how long-winded a reply you make, it does not change the fact that I began my statement by pointing out that what I was about to say was just how I felt, and therefore not necessarily based on mathematics. I stand by my statement because it is 100% true, and nothing you say is going to change that. Colincbn (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn I'm sorry you feel that way, but your feelings are based on a distorted perception of whats really happening. The reality is I have questioned/contested close to a 5th of your edits, not all your edits. As you know I normally focus on content but I will not let such a bald face statement about my behavior stand unchallenged. I feel your first statement about my behavior (on tree shaping article) gives other editors the impression that I'm being unreasonable in my dealings with you. So, if in future you choose to write these type of statements again, I will point out where and how your statements is not true. Blackash   have a chat 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please Focus on Content not on contributors. Colincbn (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn you started this, by discussing how you felt I was behaving. I'm merely trying to clarity the reality with logic. This is not to devalue your feelings, maybe the few edits I have questioned/contested have a greater importance then the ones I didn't question/contest, and this has lead to your feelings about my behavior. Anyway I'll be happy to leave this alone, and get back to content. On that note I'm going to give you the refs for the content you removed from Pooktre section. I'll start a new section on Tree shaping talk page next. Blackash   have a chat 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your right, I did start it. But that was an attempt to offer an olive branch by being clear about the fact that I am not working against you to have the title of the article reverted to Arbo. I voted to revert to the original name in the prior discussion because of Policy that clearly states that is what we do in these cases (the whole first non-stub title thing). However, thanks in large part to you, I have come to realize that there is no agreed upon term for this art-form. Therefore it seems to me that a descriptive title is best. I think it is ok if this title is long, in fact I think it is better if it is. "Why?" you may ask. My answer would be that by giving the article a short easy to use title what we are actually doing is giving a name to the art. That is clearly original research. As Wikipedians we cannot chose a name for the art, that is for the practitioners to decide. Ahh, but in your case you are both a wikipedian (and a good one I might add), and a practitioner. That is where the conflict is. I 100% understand why you feel as strongly about this subject as you do. I imagine a large portion of every one of your days is spent watering, pruning, and caring for the very things the article is about. That is one of the main reasons I opposed a talk page ban, there are very, very few people on this earth with as much experience in this field as you. As such it is a huge benefit to the article that someone like you has put this much effort into it. I do not want to lose that. However, it is a double edged sword. Because of your connection to the art you are not in a position where you can act as a neutral wikipedian when dealing with the subject, because you are first and foremost an artist. I am not. I have as much artistic talent as a gnat. But I am pretty good at this Wikipedia stuff if I do say so myself. That is why I think it is best if you leave any contentious points, specifically naming and anything related to it, to me and other editors like me. Of course I cannot guarantee that it will turn out the way you want, but I can guarantee that I will fight to make sure that it turns out the way that WP Policy demands. Colincbn (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know you had good intentions, but you would have received a better response by bringing this up at my talk page like you have before, instead of the article talk page. I know my comment would have been shorter with different terms used. I would appreciate it, when you want to talk about how you feel I am behaving to please bring it up here or on my talk page.
 * As to the title thank you for letting me know your views, as long as the title meets wikipedia policies I'm sure it work out. Blackash   have a chat 11:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping arbitration editor contributions
Hi Colincbn. The section of article growth evidence I posted isn't intended to be used for the name debate. The point was that the banning of blackash and slowart was stupid because 1) they have done a lot of good contributions, and 2) even with them banned the naming debate rages on. A lot of other editors think the solution is for Arbcom to ban them even more, and that will magically fix the problem. Note the suggestions of Martin and SilkTork on the proposal page. AfD hero (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was just thinking about what to add to the comments on those sections. I am not a fan of banning either, but at this point it may be inevitable. I think if Blackash simply backed off when someone disagrees with her it would be best, but I worry that she is to close to the issue to see it that way. And it is not really fair for me to ask it of her. Colincbn (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I do recognize your point about the wikipedia name influencing the real world, which then reinforces the wikipedia name, (blackash's off-site actions making this worse as well) but I just think that this alone is not a strong enough reason to use a longwinded awkward name. AfD hero (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed your RfC
Your RfC was an attack on me. You acknowledge something along those lines. Please rewrite it and/or take the behavioral problems that you assert to a more appropriate venue. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use help. That's the point of the tags. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog is now edit-warring to keep your attacks in the talk page. I consider this an attack on us both. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not attack you. Accusing me of that is, ironically, an attack though. But don't worry about it, I'm not offended and I assume it is just a misunderstanding. However, removing someone else's RfC tag is absolutely unacceptable. No one gets to own this, or any other, article. We have to work together, even when we disagree. Colincbn (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue to attack me. You've taken it to ANI as well, still as nothing more than an attack.
 * "Accusing me of that is..." Please don't attack me further for trying to get you to follow WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason we have policies like WP:OWN is because sometimes people break them. Pointing it out is not an attack. I do not know anything about you, you are most likely a fine person who truly has the best intentions. I just happen to feel you are stifling improvement of the MGE article by being far too controlling of the content, specifically the banner tags. That is not a personal attack, it is just an observation and my feelings on what is being observed. I'm sure that if we worked together is a spirit of compromise and collaboration we could clear up any issues that require banner tags in a day or less. Colincbn (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I belive you should read: NPA. Colincbn (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Baseless accusations made without discussion are attacks per WP:AVOIDYOU. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My accusations are not baseless as can be seen by the discussion. Please stop accusing me of a personal attack. If you feel that I have violated policy start an RfCU or an ANI on me. I will be happy to respond.
 * Also I think you are focusing too much on the negative. You have not shown me any of the courtesy you are demanding. I made it clear that I do not want to be confrontational, and have apologized for the one time I was. yet you have focused on confrontation. Lets stop now shall we? Why not WP:FOC like you have reminded others to do. I'm sure that if you accept I am not "out to get you" or anything like that you will see we both simply want to improve the article. This is a collaborative process. Spell out what you want and I will do my utmost to provide it. And again let me apologize for being confrontational, if you remember that was in response to you accusing me of trying to hinder progress on the article after you reverted my changes, note I did not re-revert as I believe in WP:BRD, the fact that you reverted does not bother me in the slightest. But accusing me of trying to hinder progress does. You have since struck your comments and I have dropped it until now. Why not do the same and just move on? Colincbn (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo request Todaiji
Hi! If you have time, I'd be very happy about some images of National Treasures (or any other Cultural Properties): Please let me know if you need more directions of locating these treasures. Also, alternatively you could just take pictures of anything old you encounter and we'd figure out later what it is. Especially images of less well known places or items are needed (In my opinion we are saturated with images of the Daibutsuden.). Are you planning to go anywhere else in Nara besides Tōdai-ji, such as Kōfuku-ji, Kasuga Shrine, etc.? As for images of sculptures, sometimes we only have one image of a group of sculptures available on wikipedia/commons, so any additional images would be great as well. Have a great trip! bamse (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scripture House (本坊経庫 honbōkyōko): geo-coordinates see this list, looks like, . Not sure how close you can get, or whether you can see it at all without climbing walls or fences. It is located about 70 metres East of the (centre of the) big gate (Nandaimon).
 * Sculptures that don't have an image in List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) yet, i.e.:
 * In Hokke-dō/Sangatsu-dō:
 * Bonten (乾漆梵天立像 kanshitsu bonten ryūzō?) and Taishakuten (乾漆帝釈天立像 kanshitsu taishakuten ryūzō)
 * Kongōrikishi (Niō) (乾漆金剛力士立像 kanshitsu kongōrikishi ryūzō) ,
 * Four Heavenly Kings (乾漆四天王立像 kanshitsu shitennō ryūzō)
 * In Shunjō-dō (俊乗堂):
 * Priest Shunjō (木造俊乗上人坐像 mokuzō shunjō shōnin zazō)
 * In Hachiman-dono (八幡殿):
 * Hachiman in the guise of a seated monk (木造僧形八幡神坐像 mokuzō sōgyō hachimanjin zazō)
 * In Founder's Hall (開山堂 kaisan-dō), near Nigatsudo and Sangatsudo:
 * Priest Rōben (木造良弁僧正坐像 mokuzō rōben sōjō zazō)
 * Crafts:
 * Box with flower and bird design (花鳥彩絵油色箱 kachō saieyushokubako): Not at all sure whether it is on display and where. Can't remember a museum at Tōdai-ji, so possible it would be occasionally on display at the Nara National Museum.
 * Ok I'll see what I can do. Some of the artifacts may be in the Kōfuku-ji museum. I have a second job as an English language tour-guide for a Japanese language school here in Japan. We mostly do day trips out of Okazaki. Most weekends we do two trips. Because our customers are here to study culture, and the tours are not done for profit but to help educate the students, we mainly go to "off the beaten track" places. And I have a lot of leeway on where to go. We go to the Ise Nai-gu about once every two months and to Nara and kyoto about the same. We go to the Iga Ueno park to the Ninja museum and Ueno-jo a lot as well. They have some great stuff. We do tours pretty much every weekend but some of them are hiking trips and trips to power plants and craft centers. So they are not all to historic sites. If you give me a "Wish list" I can probably complete it over the summer session. Anyway it is 1:40am here now so I am going to bed. Just let me know what you need and I will do my best to get it. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I saw your message re Todaiji and have replied on the talk page - guess statues etc a priority but probably harder to capture than buildings; sounds like a fabulous job, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great job. My wishlist would be Cultural Properties of Japan that don't have an image yet (which are many). I am especially interested in National Treasures, but images of many other Cultural Properties are also desired. For instance Folk Cultural Properties, Cultural Landscapes or Groups of Traditional Buildings could match well with "off the beaten track places". As for National Treasures, the most desired images are of 3D objects, especially crafts items such as swords, sculptures, archaeological materials or other crafts. But there are still a lot of structures un-pictured, even in and around Kyoto, such as residences. Thanks again and looking forward to your images. bamse (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per this, it might not be worth to look for the honbōkyōko I wished for above. Unless they have a special opening or you can get a glimpse over the wall/through the trees. bamse (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How was your trip to Tōdai-ji? Did you succeed in taking pictures? bamse (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! I have about 700 to go through. I plan on getting them up this week, but I think most of them will be useless. Mostly just photos of places we already have. I got a lot fewer sculptures than I thought I would. There was a girl in a wheelchair on the tour and I had to spend more time than usual making sure she could get to all the places we go (I carried her to the top of Nigatsu-do etc). I will try to get them up onto flicker or something A.S.A.P. Colincbn (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Looking forward to it, but take your time. bamse (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you already put them on flicker? bamse (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of this talk page
Sorry that you feel badly about our interactions. Do take it to ANI if you feel the need to and can't discuss it with me civilly first. I'll be extra-cautious to avoid upsetting you further. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, no worries. I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding. Colincbn (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry Morgan
While I agree with your addition of the words "and a pirate", it probably would be good for you to add some further references. My initial addition of that descriptor was ill-received, and the issue is currently being discussed at the talk page, if you'd care to lend your voice there. LHM 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add my voice there, but it will have to wait until I have recovered from the effects of a drink named after the bold privateering Pirate of which we speak. I own a lot of books that discuss the ol'rouge and I am more than happy to add them as references. Colincbn (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you could point to an incident backed up by an authorative source that backs up the pirate claim made by several authors. Notably Francis Drake is frequently denounced by Spanish language sources as a pirate but he was in fact a privateer like Morgan.  In every case listed in the article, Morgan's activities were authorised by Letters of Marque.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion of the article contained to the article talk page. We've provided you with reliable sources there, that call him a "pirate." We need to keep the discussion of that article confined to that article talkpage only. LHM 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:STALK, you appear to be crossing a line here. I suggest you pull back now.  Apologies to Colin for cluttering his talk page.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not stalking to comment at a user's talkpage where I've commented before. You're making all sorts of allegations against me now, and you really should stop doing so. It's not out of line at all for me to ask you to keep the discussion about the article in a central place at the article's talkpage. I've tried to be civil to you this entire time, and haven't become angry at all. If anyone is "crossing a line", WCM, it's you. LHM 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, Colin.
I'll keep Henry Morgan on my watchlist, but having been accused of all manner of things (including, but not limited to, stalking) for trying to add to that article, I think I'll let you run point on working at the article. I may pitch in a bit from time to tiime, but for the most part, I'll just keep it on my watchlist, and help where needed. LHM 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I completely understand, I do hope you help when the inevitable 3RR gets thrown at me after his 4th revert. Colincbn (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers gentleman, I observe you continue to presume bad faith. For information I'd already indicated I did not intend to make any further reverts but you're already planning on edit warring to force dubious information into the article.  Who is being disruptive here? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Colincbn,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)


 * The bot beat me to it. I have to say I am really disappointed that you would edit war to remove a  tag presenting a children's author as a reliable historian.  Please self-revert, I really would prefer working with you in a collaborative manner.  There is no need for this at all.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to get your emotions under control. Your position has been proved incorrect. There are sources that call Morgan a pirate. There's simply no debating that. Now, you're trying get Colin blocked. You need to stop these attacks on people who disagree with you about Morgan. LHM 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will most likely not be blocked as I have not reverted more than three times. I expect a boomerang is forthcoming. Colincbn (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And one of the sources is by David Cordingly. One of the worlds foremost scholars of Pirate history. Stockton did write some stories that were enjoyed by both adults and children alike, but that is not all he wrote. You cannot say The Lady, or the Tiger is a children's story. And this is not even to mention the documentary. Colincbn (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the above your reply? I did look at Stockton's book on Buccaneers and it seemed destined for a children's audience to me IMHO.  As such I doubt the scholarly quality of the work.  I'm aware of David Cordingly but I did ask you politely to share a quote from that reference with me as I do not possess it.  And again you keep referring to the 1665 date but there is no reliable record for Morgan before that date.  Did it take the filing of a 3RR report for you to suddenly want to discuss your sources?  Have I not earnestly asked for a mature discussion? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added four sources (including Cordingly's) in my first post on the issue. You are being disingenuous. Colincbn (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you don't wish to discuss the matter maturely, then don't. I'm walking away for 24 hrs, I suggest you self-revert and we can continue the discussion tomorrow when you're calmer. OK Wee Curry Monster talk 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WCM, Colin's response was calm and measured. You've accused your "opponents" of stalking you and filed reports to try to get us sanctioned. This needs to stop, WCM. I think we all want to improve that article. Clearly, you don't like that we've discovered sources that call Morgan a "pirate." That's fine, but it doesn't mean you get to accuse people of being immature, of stalking you, and of not being calm. These accusations need to stop, for everyone's sake. LHM 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review.
We've interacted on the Henry Morgan page, as well as at the 3RR board, and I respect your opinion. I would appreciate it if you would offer your opinion at the editor review I've opened for myself. Best, LHM 03:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese dialect/s
While there are many languages, our article on the topic is named Language, and so on. This is in conformance with WP:SINGULAR, which states: "Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses." There are exceptions to this rule, which include language families, but I did not consider the class of Japanese dialects to be a family. However, I see now that in most cases our articles on the dialects of a standard language have a plural title, so for the sake of consistency I'll undo my move when I have time. --Lambiam 03:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. I had not been aware of WP:SINGULAR. Since this is part of WP:TITLE, which is a policy, it might be best to bring it up there before you revert your change. Perhaps the best thing would be to change all dilect articles to the singular. Colincbn (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)