User talk:Cresix/Archive 1

Re:Norwegian wood
Hi Cresix, I already added a source, and just one of the multiple sources about the say "norwegian wood=knowing she would". Although it is not official yet, I think it would be good to let more people know the funny similarity (if you don't remind people, they may not think in this way. and I noted it is just a folk story). Then people can choose to believe or not, or just laugh out. Also, thanks for removing the additional sentence about the movie. I just realized there is indeed another wiki page about the movie/novel. Lionelchange (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC).

Re:Rosanne Cash pic
Hi Cresix. I represent Rosanne Cash. She would like to use the image of her playing a guitar as her main photo. Thanks for looking after her page. I'll re-upload the photo. Rosannecash (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC) User:Rosannecash

Re:Dakota pic
Thanks. You're welcome to do what you want with it- I didn't want to put it on the page because I guessed there would be a lot of editors who had a better idea of where it belongs. (Also, not really sure what's wrong with putting images on talk pages, but you're welcome to remove it if it's worrying you.) J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I edited Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart' pages before seeing you message. Thecoolguy4ever (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)thecoolguy4ever

Vandalism
Please review WP:VAND to understand what vandalism is. This edit is not, and labeling edits as such would not be considered good faith. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Last Day of Summer(film)
Why did you restore the copyright tag? Is the new summary also a copyvio? Theleftorium (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Barkley edit
You're right, I shouldn't have reacted so strongly, even if the sourcing was improper. But I thought there was sufficent reason to suggest that Barkley did add it, since if you go to his Wikipedia page, and his webpage, he clearly is proactive with regard to projecting a web presence. Comments on his wikipedia page seem to support what I'm suggesting Randomtask (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
--Dc987 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart Page
hey sorry for that, I heard in the news, that she will be in the film, but then searched in Google and I found that she not participate , I forgot to delete the incorrect information. and sorry again for that. . . (Sm3a (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)).

Ugh, IP Editors Are Fun
I had to give a second warning to 71.183.222.12 for adding misinformation to the America's Got Talent (season 5) article. Turns out he was using the article as a means to make his predictions for who would proceed in the episode. Turns out he was almost right, but it came as a shocker to me that the lightning act had to win a judges' vote and didn't make the top three. Either way, it was all unsourced and I performed a rollback; I only this evening placed the second warning as I had to go after reverting earlier. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Jack Nicholson edits
The external links I added to some Jack Nicholson articles lead to a website that provides valuable information about his films and, more importantly, shows scenes from the films that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Why do you feel they "add nothing to the article"? Seems to me, they add something. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The links were to film-specific pages at a site whose umbrella is Nicholson. Did you even look at the site before you deleted my work? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As a film buff, I found the site a valuable resource, particularly for its inclusion of screencaps that are forbidden here. There is nothing for sale there, and not even any advertising. Contrast that with IMDB, which links you did not delete, that is cluttered with advertising and with links to amazon to buy DVDs. Now that's spam. I'm not trying to get into a debate here, it's just that deletions like you made is what drives many well-meaning editors into early retirement from Wikipedia. The links did make readers' experiences better and that's a consideration that too often gets short-schrift around here. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AGT Season 5
I'll respect the decision regarding this matter, if it goes either way. As a sidenote, I think the summary "Performance Description" should be much more broad than just their performance on that night. It should be a description of the artist as a whole, not just the genre(s) they've performed on the show. Gamer9832 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AGT Template
The AGT template should include season 6 because it is the next season and has been confirmed on the show itself and the show's website and auditions website. My sources: http://americasgottalentauditions.com/new/register (they have already begun registration for season 6) http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/08/17/americas-got-talent-casting-call-in-des-moines/ (pre-auditions are already scheduled to start soon- and at the bottom of the page, it provides information about when season 6 will air) Gamer9832 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment
Please explain how my edits to Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment's pages are vandalism. Lydiadavis (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Lydiadavis

Please also explain how I have engaged in sockpuppetry. I have one Wikipedia account as far as I know. I have tried multiple times to edit the same article with relevant information, failing each time because of improper sourcing. This represents a failure of understanding, not of vandalism or sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydiadavis (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Fanning and Osment
"Because they have been reverted by two editors but you continue to place them in the article. There is no evidence that the author intended any similarity to the real Fanning and Osment other than the names. I could write a novel and name a character "Barack Obama", but that may be the entire extent of any similarity to Barack Obama. You need to cease edit warring and obtain a clear consensus on the articles' talk pages before restoring your edit."

They were reverted for improper sourcing in all cases. Every subsequent edit was an attempt to adhere more closely to Wikipedia's rules. This is not edit warring. This is attempting to comply with rules.

The fact that there is no evidence that the author intended any similarity to the real Fanning and Osment has never been cited as a reason for reverts. Reasons cited for reverts were that they were improperly cited, in all cases.

Please explain how my actions have been sockpuppetry. Lydiadavis (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Lydiadavis

"I suggest not pushing this issue. If you continue I'll launch a full sockpuppetry investigation. It's a simple matter to determine if you are logging out and then editing from an anon IP. Now, everything important has been fully explained to you. Either seek consensus or drop the matter."

I am not logging out and editing from an anon IP. I have made edits under Lydiadavis every time. An investigation would show this. If you want to take that time to confirm this fact, I do not mind. I am attempting to seek consensus on how my edits are an example of sockpuppetry and what I can do to keep them in their respective entries. Please advise.

Regarding the honey page link (74% vs. 97%)
Hi. Computers are not really my thing so I do not have any idea how to contact you so I hope this works. Also, I have no idea how to adjust links, etc. At any rate, the link only takes you to the general Oregon State page but the article is still there:  The specific url is as follows:

http://food.oregonstate.edu/faq/sugar/faq_sugar53.html

It would seem that whoever wrote the original article just looked at the wrong entry: 74% appears to be for molasses.

(Again, sorry if any of my terminology is off, hope this is what you need.)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.1.62 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'll add it in. The information doesn't indicate if or how it takes into account the variability of honey, so I'm leaving it out til we have something more authoritative. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies revert
See discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Revert_of_this:_.5B3.5D --146.96.130.201 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Sorry about that, I thought I read an article stating That he was the winner. Now I just read another one after you said that, and apparently they haven't even decided the winner yet. My Apologies. --Redsox42311 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused and I may not be doing this right, but I'm trying to reply to the message below. I only use Wikipedia to look stuff up (great job, by the way, kudos to everyone) and I've never tried to make edits and wouldn't know how. The message suggests my computer (by IP address) was used to change a "Blazing Saddles" article. I've never even navigated to that page and haven't had reason to. Either there's been a mistake (which is why I'm writing, in case it's something you need to follow up on your end) or someone has been using the workstation in my office after hours - and that would be something I need to follow up on my end. I'll do what I can to find out what happened here - and maybe you can find whoever actually made the change to "Blazing Saddle" to give them the warning. -- thanks

Here's the message: "User talk:161.185.157.24 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] September 2010 Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Blazing Saddles. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)" 161.185.157.24 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Again, I'm probably not using this messaging properly, but I wanted you to know that I checked with my agency's help desk, and the IP address you think I'm writing from (161.185.157.24) is not the IP address of this computer. The help desk is investigating whether there's a virus or some other security issue. 161.185.157.24 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid Warning/Stupid People
You posted:

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of backmasked messages. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please (somehow) answer me how the hell I'm suppose to contribute to Wikipedia without every damn edit being reversed? As much as I like editing to find some nutjob (Not you) reversed it then pulls out some Bullshit excuse - It is beggining to annoy me. Firstly I added quotes - It was removed by someone for no reason. I added the actual sound file - Removed. I re-added and explained - Removed. So now you somehow expect me to pull out a random website for a 4 lyrics backtracked message. Awesome - I'll get right on that because I'm sure a website exists? I have found better things to do on Wikipedia and that's to question every edit I don't agree with I have jumped the Bandwagon and will start harassing people on talk pages, oh I will comb through the list myself and remove ones that aren't properly quotes and/or sourced.

Thank you for making me realize how idiotic Wikipedia is on new editors and how any edit that helps is removed for stupid reasons. --PhantomScott (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh emm gee, you take titles waaaayyy to seriously -_- Also I was editing within guidelines - It just gets removed. You can say "you weren't" but i'm sure every edit I made was within guidelines and if it wasn't it was because the previous was removed when it was within guidelines.--PhantomScott (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

House episodes
There really shouldn't be anything to discuss. These are short articles containing nothing more than plot summary, and per WP:EPISODE they should be redirected. I did this with all but a couple episodes among the CSI trilogy, and those were even worse condition — most had huge trivia lists, and one even had a huge rambling personal essay thrown in by an IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I left Pilot (House) alone — it has loads of information on the development, filming, critical reception, etc. of the pilot and is even well-written enough to be an FA. The ones I've redirected so far all had no amount of sourcing at all, and most of the CSI and Two and a Half Men episodes had, at best, fansites and TV.com. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have precedent on my side. WP:EPISODE says that it's a "generally accepted standard" by the community; that is, the mass redirection that I'm doing isn't some wild and crazy idea, but rather exercise of a common precedent. None of the episodes meet WP:N in any way, except for the ones that I've left alone. Most TV series have no articles on individual episodes, just a seasons list with short plot summaries. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find it rather suspect that you're triggering the "redirect becoming article" tag... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I already did an extensive search for sources and found absolutely nothing: just unreliable sites like TV.com, IMDb and fansites. Almost all of the others were using sources that were unreliable (some even had blogs) or trivial (TV by the Numbers' Nielsen numbers). One episode, Here Kitty, had a source that mentioned that cat who can tell if someone has cancer, but said nothing at all about his involvement on House. The content is still preserved in the redirect, so if someone finds any sources that I've missed, they're more than welcome to revert the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered here and here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm discussing my redirection now. Also, thanks for not prompting an edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the point, no need to keep telling me. That's why I'm not touching the articles right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Portman
Sir, I'm Sorry to edit the Natalie Portman Page , But Jerusalem is not the capital or a city of Israel (or at least not yet , nobody recognize Jerusalem as a capital of Israel... ), Please put something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baammi (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ava Gardner
Hello, look I didn't mean to add anything controversial. In her early life it stated that her father was of the Catholic faith. In fact, I just added a more reputable source claiming that she was Baptist with information to verify the finding. I am really not trying to do anything bad nor am I trying to start any kind of controversery.

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Multiples Page
So would the obituary of one of the Quads suffice as a reputable source? Here's the link. The kids were born in October and Daphne passed away in December. http://obit-obits.com/d20081218zp21 Benscoterquads (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Benscoterquads

Regarding the recent edit to Indigo Children
I've looked into it, and the site does indeed register as potentially harmful. I've brought it up on ANI. I dunno that it's really proper to call it vandalism, I'm not going to remove the warning or anything, but it appears to have been made with honest and good intentions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the IP editor has revealed that works at Eternal Press (and an "Indigo" works there), and another editor has found a copy of the article on a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

SO you are edit warring and then warning me? Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.191.227 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now you are just being dishonest. The content isn't original nor is it unsourced. It is a referenced quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.191.227 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not original research and you are being dishonest. First you claimed it had nothing to do with the article and I pointed out it was an extension of the previous paragraph. Then you claimed there was no mention of a book so I pointed out that there was. Then you claimed it was a different book so I pointed out that it wasn't. Then you claimed it was original and unsourced which is absolutely false. You are the one edit warring by removing sourced content you don't personally like and making up false reasons for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.191.227 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you. Stop making things up to try and get me blocked for adding SOURCED information you happen to dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.191.227 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who Vs. cn
Please see Talk:Dakota Fanning-- Talk tome (Intelati) 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe image
I reverted your edit on the Marilyn Monroe page because that image was on their for months before it was replaced, and for no reason. Nobody gave an explanation for changing it to that image from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, so I reverted back to the original. Andrew0921 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert
Good afternoon, I saw your message on my talk page and I just wanted to clarify that in her biographical information it indicates that she was raised Catholic so it isn't like I randomly chose a religion for her.

Catholics
In the Roman Catholic Church, one is considered catholic after they are baptised. So from the time they are a child to the end of their life, even if they are not practicing, the RCC views them as officially being catholic, unless they are excommunicated or formally leave the faith. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Thanks, ill be sure to only add categories if the article mentions it with a reliable source. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption
Good call on your recent revert there, and the edit summary was spot on. That kind of interpretation has no place in the article. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Welles & RC
Thanks for the clarification. I completely misunderstood the import of "or were" in the category. I'm in a bit of a rush now, but I am not inclined to edit the Category interpretation to avoid misunderstandings of the kind in the future. I wonder then if there is a place in WP for a category of ex-Catholics or folks who were raised Catholic such as Frank Zappa or Bill Maher (which would in turn include Orson Welles.) That is however a separate question.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Drmies has already re-edited the Category page to clarify the "self-identified" policy. With regard to your more recent note, the fact that Frank Zappa and Bill Maher are ex-Catholics is very relevant to understanding their work, whereas I'm not sure Welles' Catholic upbringing (he had one) is especially notable.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan Savage
Go read the category source.

"The following category includes persons from United States who are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church."

I agree "culturally Catholic" is disputable. But I don't think the idea that DS was a member of the RCC is. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As per the discussion on my talk page, I see your point that "were" might be intended only to apply to the deceased. I would recommend that that be clarified at the category inclusion criteria.  It appears that you beat me to reverting my own edit, or I would have been happy to do that myself.    --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Have a great weekend!  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI:Clarification of WP:V and WP:Before
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. as you will. Accotink2 talk 16:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

personal attack?
I've presented what I believe to be a fair characterization of our dispute at Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) about what constitutes a personal attack here. If you think I misrepresented something, please comment accordingly. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe
Sorry, but it got changed a long time ago to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and then it got changed back to The Prince and The Showgirl for no reason. So I don't know how that's fair. And i dont see what grounds or authority you have to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmonroepictures (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious categories
Thanks for your insights on the de-cat process. Would you mind dropping me a link to the template you mentioned? You are probably right - there is no deadline and it's a long job - especially, as you say, across faiths. I realise most edits and cats are in good faith - it's just seeming to bring up a lot of conflict. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Span (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. Span (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw, am following. Span (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cresix, you might be interested in the discussion about James Joyce's faith going on at the moment. The category question is being openly discussed (rather than in an edit war), but again it brings us to the limitations of categorisation. One question it raises is: if there is evidence of conflicted faith, important to the person and deeply resented at the same time, as there is with Joyce, does a category have any place in the article. Just flagging it up for your interest. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jan Karski
You rv Category:Catholic Righteous Among the Nations from Jan Karski's article using WP:HOTCAT. This is a mistake. That category is not redundant in any way and is integral to the Karski article. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass category changes
Hi, I see that User talk:24.23.162.249 has mis-added categories to around 60 articles this morning, none that I can see with sourcing. Is there a way of rolling back these edits en masse without going through each one and correcting them, do you know? Span (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

re Henry Darger
According to the article "...he attended Mass daily, frequently returning for as many as five services..." I don't know how much more Roman Catholic you can get than that. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but then I guess you should remove the material from the article, or at least tag it. Herostratus (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good then, carry on. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sign Language
Hey Cresix,

Still fighting the good fight, eh? ;) I've read the discussion on the talk page, and have nothing to add. I think that you've said it all more than adequately, but know that you have my full and unequivocal support.  I'll keep an eye on it if the situation changes any.  Good luck. Christine (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your response over on my talk page, of course you're right, so I've joined in the discussion. Thanks for the push.  I dunno about you, but after so many years in Deafness, I am so fed up with these kinds of discussions.  It gets so old after a while, and the opposition refuses to let go in spite of overwhelming evidence.  It's like the person who insists that the sky is red even when everyone else in the world knows differently.  I'm too old to get all worked up about it, doncha know.  Even after so many years of dealing with it, I still can't understand why it happens.  I know that ensuring accuracy is important in WP, but my weariness with the whole thing is one of the things that cause me to avoid Deafness articles.  I'm content editing Sesame Street and Maya Angelou articles, thank you very much.  At any rate, let me know how I can be of any further assistance. Christine (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I would first like to say that I have enjoyed this discussion. Reading the comments you and Christine have made on each others pages and things that were said in the discussion of the SL page, I hope to clarify some things. I hope that what I say in the following lines can lead to more productive conversations with "the opposition" (which I hope you mean to be those unfamiliar with linguistics) if you partake in these conversations in the future, which I hope you do. Unlike what Christine says about "It's like the person who insists that the sky is red even when everyone else in the world knows differently," this was my first time to have the distinction between "use of words" and "use of language" be made, along with it being my first time to read about the requirements of language to have grammar and syntax. Based on not being familiar with the linguist's definition of language  which is what you were using, (i was defining it to mean communication) of course we were arriving at disagreement.  This distinction is one that I believe the majority of the population does not make because the majority of the population is not familiar with linguistics. Cresix, you were the first person I had ever met that claimed nhps don't use Sign Language. Therefore, when you alone claim it is not true and don't provide a reliable source, i was not immediately convinced. Had you in the beginning provided a link to the transcript of the AOL discussion with Koko, papers showing flaws in the research and their methods, I think I would have come to agree with you sooner. I think making comments such as "Animals do NOT use language, regardless of what a source might say" and "Please familiarize yourself with the linguistics of sign language (start by reading every article related to American Sign Language) before adding outrageous information about animals using sign language" are not helpful in furthering the education of people on this subject. I urge you both to not become discouraged if a person does not agree with you immediately, it may be that you are introducing them to a new perspective and therefore it takes time for a person to change their mind. I feel saying "And it's more than ignorance; it's bull-headed, I'll-write-what-I-want ignorance," is not fair. Two (2) out of three (3) times I reverted, I modified what I had written to try and incorporate what the person who made the delete was saying. In the first revert I included sources (although not good ones) because that is what the person wanted. The third time I deleted some of the stuff I had written based on points Cresix was making. While I admit my edits were not satisfactory, I feel it would have been more productive for those more knowledgeable on the subject to incorporate their knowledge/expertise to the information I was trying to include along with deleting, rather than only deleting. So I'm sorry you felt that it was "bull headed, i'll write what i want ignorance". I did try take what those who deleted my edits were saying into consideration, not just reverting without making any revisions whatsoever. Additionally, while I agree with requesting research that has been peer reviewed in linguistic journals, unfortunately, in our society, finding peer reviewed journals that are free and easily accessible (i.e. online) are hard to come by. I think if you provide sources for your position with research from the journals you have at the beginning of the discussion, rather than only when someone asks for it, it will help those who want to learn about the topic, such as myself. Unfortunately I do not have the means to access the journals you have but I would very  much like to. Asking me to provide information from such journals is, unfortunately, beyond my means. While although I am less educated on this topic, I do know there remains a lot of inequality and oppression towards those who are deaf, mute and these communities. I stand in solidarity with you in the fight for equality and against this oppression. While we may still have disagreement (as Cresix pointed out, "I mean no personal offense, but it is clear that you know little or nothing about the linguistics of sign language") I hope there is a place for me to help contribute to this topic. Please understand that I am trying to learn and am taking what you say into consideration. I hope that my future edits to the topic will help to improve the page, making it easier for those not familiar with this subject to become familiar. And I hope you can help me in this process. Thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. I believe it has been valuable.Jessicanr (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pah!

 * You're welcome--thanks thanks. Lean on me whenever.  I just wish that I was able to contribute more; I just don't have access to any good info anymore.  Living in semi-rural Northern Idaho (with almost no Deaf) makes it hard.  Ah, I miss the days I could just walk across the hall for the most up-to-date research and info about Deafness and ASL.  The only signing practice I get these days is on YouTube.  Keep up the good work! Christine (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this barnstar. I appreciate the amount of work you put into that debate. I applaud your efforts to keep the article from straying too far outside the linguistic mainstream. I had a similar problem with a disambiguation page - (Koko) which I was finally able to resolve by changing it to say that Koko was trained in sign language (which everyone agrees on) instead of having it say she uses sign language which, as you know, is a matter that is strongly contested by linguists. It was particularly frustrating because the article on the gorilla had the information about the controversy, but, for some reason my edits to the disambiguation page kept being reverted as if there was no question about the issue. Qaz (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

warning
Do not revert any more of my edits, stop calling them vandelism, and stop doing visuals on my talk page. If i see you have reverted another one of my edits or left any more messages on my talk page, except for "i'm sorry." i will have Dismas hear about you. I already notafied comet tuttle that i may be writing a complaint about you, so undo that reversion and leave me allone, for the love of wikipedia. No more talking to me, no more threatening to block me, and stop trying to be judge judy. Or i will have you taken to judge judy. Leave me allone. You may want to take a look at this policy. WP: AGF. N.I.M. (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

found source for kids next door
My friend read the credits for www.metacafe.com/watch/5159612/knd_operation_zero_part_8_final/ which is operation zero, and it says that Catherine Thompson voices the crazy old cat lady. I do not know how to put it in reference because of my screen reader. Problom solved, Unless they are lying to me, in which case, let me know. i did my best, and that's all i can do, that's why i said to look at the WP: AGF page. I'm not trying to vandelize at all, oh no. And Denise, a friend of mine looked at the credits for challenge of the superfriends of foster's home for imaginary friends and says that Grey DeLisle who plays Frankie voices Nemesis. Yes it was her that read the knd credits for me and said Catherine Thompson's name is there, see you. N.I.M. (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

credits at end
Credits at the end of it say. IMDB is wrong, and by the way, Fairly aud parents doesn't have alexis jordan, you were right there. Please review the credits, Denise missed it the first time too. If not, who voices her in the operation z.e.r.o. (not unfriendly, just asking), and how do you properly add a source? Screen readers do not pick up on capshas. N.I.M. (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question, but see the talk page of list of villains incodename kids next door, and look for the section "Catherine Thompson", i talk about how i found out there, then you can tell me if it really says Catherine Thompson there. And if it does turn out that my friend is lying to me when she read the credits or said there were credits, then i'm tarribly sorry. Hopefully she's not, see you on kids next door villains talk page. And if you're not,annie, then please, just say on my talk page, "I'm not the bully Cresix", as she often uses her account name which is exactly the same as yours, sorry about that. If you are annie, let's forget the past and make wikipedia better together, ok? let's make it better together anyway, how about that? N.I.M. (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

's Man
I'm not sure if you saw this, and I guess it won't have any effect on the AIV report, but that user was editing as Special:Contributions/204.112.104.172, and was blocked a few times, one was for a month. I agree with this edit on the IP's talk page, especially the part about the charade. --CutOffTies (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What cut off ties is refering to is an edit that my friend George did while using my computer. He used a name from a novel we read in english class two years ago, and thought it would be a good coverup. He has no rellavence to my using that address, as i learned how in september to edit wikipedia. George stopped editing around the 14th, when he had to leave for a while, and when he got back, i created an account and forbade him from going on my computer again. This problom has nothing to do with me, and if cut off ties wants, he can go on that user address page and talk to George, not me. He's not my friend anymore anyway. N.I.M. (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. George. First cousin to Harvey the rabbit. Standard trollish behavior. Cresix (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. and "George" also loves posting on the ref desk about those cartoon voice characters, and has the same unique writing style as you. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for months. I mentioned that he was probably a troll over a month ago, and he had already been here for awhile then. I suppose he might not consciously be a troll, but rather an annoying kid, not that there is much difference. I know he has said he is 18, but I highly doubt it; he said he has a 5-year-old sister, which makes me assume he is much younger too; he also often says he is blind, but who knows. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, no offense taken, I've been an admin since being an admin actually meant something, so I know how you feel. I'd block him myself, but someone would immediately unblock him and chastise me for not following the rules and procedures. (I used to block people for "being annoying". Those were the days.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, if you are going to be hosting a discussion about an editor on your talk page, don't be surprised if that editor comments in the discussion. That is not harassment. If you are posting warnings on an editor's talk page, especially dire warnings of immediate blocking, don't be surprised if they respond on your talk page. That is not harassment, it is what user talk pages are for. All, it does not really matter what the IP address did. The editor now has a named account, they can be judged by edits made from that account. Franamax (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And if i am annoying you, sorry. Please don't file me, i'm mearly appologizing for being annoying. I was just trying to get my point across, sinse noone wold believe me. God bless. N.I.M. (talk)00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE
I think this warning may be a bit harsh. Please try to assume good faith, particularly for what might be a user's first edit. You might try reviewing WP:BITE. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions - body heat
My fault, I thought I was explaining something too simple to cite.

But actually you're also right in a way, I am publishing "original research." Its frustrating that no one else realizes the distinction between "radiating heat" and "losing heat."

This debate started with a US Army Field Manual from the 1970s. That document talks about heat that is lost(i.e. not retained by clothing) from the body. When new research was published in 2008, that report implied that all skin radiates equal amounts of heat (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1097078/Losing-heat-head-Discover-barefaced-truth-hats-myths.html).

I suppose they're both correct. But here's the problem: they're measuring different properties! Heat lost vs. heat radiated. One is a function of clothing, while the other is not. We're comparing apples to oranges!

Am I wrong, or am I right? (feel free to comment below)

Michael Graduate Student, pursuing my PhD in Organometallic Chemistry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.32.192 (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on progressive house
Should i start an article on Progressive house? should the contents of the one article that has a section on progressive house be in a progressive house article? this way, we'd be able to find out more about progressive house itself, rather then having one bit progressive house then talking about progressive trance then back to house? (if my question doesn't make sense, feel free to aske me to reword it.) N.I.M. (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisions on Jerry Lee Lewis
I was NOT giving any incorrect information; The info I gave, was confirmed by Jerrys Niece Marian, and is also straight out of Jerrys Biography "HellFire"

rambling gibberish
look, the edit was removed and called 'rambling gibberish', and it wasn't, o.k, - it was quite interesting IMO. this was removed by an editor whose user page says 'this is my page. its name is Betty. say hello to betty.' Now that is gibberish to me so its all a case of what strikes you as gibberish. it could have been reverted with an edit summary, polite, saying 'removed comment more appropriate for blog discussion than wikipedia', but it was called gibberish. i think thats rude. you don't fine. But I do, o.k. if you say 'its not rude' I dont bloody well agree o.k. Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions
I have warned the user to stop trying to re-post that non-consensus item or I'll take him to ANI for causing disruption. He seems to be either clueless or apathetic about what "consensus" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, more likely apathetic than ignorant. I don't know what's up with the "pending changes" thing. As for and its logged-out version, I'm ready to post to ANI if he pulls that stunt again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing to be aware of is that although the arrogance you talk about is reflected in his deletion of other editors' remarks without comment, it's still within his right to do so, as it implies that he's read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now posted some comments on WP:ANI. I'm asking an admin to have a word with the user, since he won't listen to us peons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the criticism, I always like to get it since it is the only way you learn from your mistakes. I changed the sentences a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MethAdvice2010 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry
Thanks. My apologies. No need to template a regular, though. Would you, please, take part in the discussion or address the issues raised in the discussion now? Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That exactly is my recommendation regarding reverting. But, as for reliability of a source, I think Wikipedia has policies and practices quite firmly in place, no matter what you or I believe. And, I would rather follow that. And, I am happy that templating have served some purpose for you. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Furnished. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spiders
You beat me to the revert. Even if it were a common belief, the wording used would imply it never happens, and that's not something any research can prove. Furthermore, the last time this came up, there was a postulated circumstance where it could happen. So if it belongs (which is doubtful), it needs different wording. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Arachnoapnea". That's pretty good. You should propose that at a scientific forum and see if it's got legs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Erdos-Bacon Number
I had sources from Yahoo Movies and I added the links as references. Why do you say "Working in the "Hair Rendering Development" department is NOT being co-cast. You must BE IN THE FILM, visible, ON THE SCREEN." Both movies are animated movies so the credited individuals cannot be visible on the screen! Can you backup your statement that technical crew wont get Bacon numbers? What is your reference? Iman sadeghi (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same thing. I asked you for references. Who says a technical crew member wont receive a Bacon number? Please provide a link to backup your claim! Thanks! Iman sadeghi (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some say Shake-speare's Bacon Number was either 1 or 0. 0 if he himself was Bacon, 1 if he was a "front" for Bacon, who had apparently been blacklisted by the HUAC. The alleged connection between the two was due to a misunderstanding in Will's diary. He was visiting a country restaurant for breakfast, and his diary simply noted: "Hamlet - Bacon." Will was a man of few words, except when he was being paid for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy who asked Kevin Bacon if he knew his name was a food must be the son or grandson of the reporter who asked Casey Stengel if Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series was the best game he had ever pitched. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The actor should have given the reporter an incredulous look and asked, "There's a food called Kevin?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear carrots, I enjoyed your humor! Do you have any facts related to my question though? Iman sadeghi (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim Wise
Heh, on a lighter note, I had to laugh when I saw that you brought up "Black Like Me" in the discussion. The fact that he named his book "White Like Me" triggered my original search for him in Wikipedia, and, thus, the entire thread. I wanted to know if a black man had actually tried the experiment in reverse. . . hmmm, on a less light note, this youngster is a little ticked that that title can no longer be used by somebody who wants to run the experiment in reverse. --Bertrc (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPN thread
You may be interested in commenting here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Ronnotel (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry for my several unsourced contributions. I'm compulsive like that, and am not trying to spam or vandalize. AmericanLeMans (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

was about to throw a fit
..because you called it partial "revert" :P... thank you &mdash; I knew someone must've coined an appropriate term. This makes sense now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hogpiling
Do you really think it is appropriate to issue warnings to an editor when they have committed no disruption since they got a previous warning? You did just that to 71.184.156.63 who had not even made another edit since the warning I issued. Did you perhaps think my warning was too friendly? Ashanda (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * conversation copied from User talk:Ashanda to preserve continuity
 * My apologies Ashanda. I was careless and didn't notice your warning to the anon. BTW (completely irrelevant), I love the painting on your user page! Cresix (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mistakes happen, it's not like I haven't made my own share and more! And thank you for the compliment of my user page. I like to keep it simple yet a bit fun and maybe mysterious... --Ashanda (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Liesel Pritzker
Regarding your query on Liesel Pritzker, her genealogy is listed in the linked article on the Pritzker family, which described as a Jewish family of Ukranian-Jewish origin. Davshul (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point
...and good distinction. I had thought the infobox calendar dates included dating, but you're quite right, that's a very different thing from a committed partner relationship. The infoboxes would indeed be quite long otherwise! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lohan in India
Thank you too for the civil discussion on the talk page! Two reasons I like working on the Lohan article, there are lots of good sources to draw from, and the discussions are usually collegial and civil. Cheers, Siawase (talk)

Re Misconceptions - Cooking - the misconception that natural wood surfaces are always less safe than plastic
Which you quashed for: "Not sourced that this is a COMMON misconception" I would submit that the 2nd and 3rd sources both establish that it is a common misconception, in that the first is a FDA doc for general distribution and establishes widespread belief and the second cites widespread controversy. I'll add a third ref to a journal article which concludes in the abstract "These results do not support the often-heard assertion that plastic cutting boards are more sanitary than wood" again documenting how common it is, and resubmit. Please review and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Violet (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (from talk)
 * Sorry, the source you cited after "common" does not refer to it as common. Being in an FDA publication doesn't mean lots of people know about it or that it's "widespread belief". I'm fairly well read, and I've never heard of it. Other sources explain why wood is better, but don't identify it as a common misconception. "Often-heard" is not equivalent to "common". I've often heard that if a frog pees on you, it will cause warts. But I've never met anyone who actually believes it. Cresix (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, "often heard" is certainly a workable definition of "common". I do not accept your position - this is better documented, referenced, and is a clearer case of a common misconception than many others in the article.  Finding a reference which explicitly states "this is a common misconception" in exactly those words is too high a hurdle; a scientific paper which explicitly states it is a "often heard assertion" has to be acceptable.  Plus the last reference cites a widespread controversy. Be reasonable, review, and undo please. Please note re your comment "But I've never met anyone who actually believes it." your personal experience is not applicable to your edits or mine, verifiable published content is all that matters. (cont'd) Again, I respectfully request you personally undo the deletion.  This is a well referenced and suitable addition here.  Three separate references confirming the widespread nature of the misconception has got to be adequate, even if you personally are not familiar with it. Curious Violet (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jess talk&#124;edits 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Jess talk&#124;edits 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Misconceptions, standards for inclusion
I've copied this over from a section on my talk page, because it seems more appropriate here. All the best, Jess talk&#124;edits 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would remind you that consensus is not necessary to begin introducing content to an article, per WP:BRD, and per BRD and WP:CON, removal of content with an edit summary of "no consensus" is discouraged. I have to say, I'm a little concerned with how you're handling the removal of content on the article... For example, this edit, which cites a book as a source, you removed some 11 minutes after it was added. I presume you haven't actually read the source in question (correct me if I'm wrong), but have simply assumed that it wasn't a sufficient source for the claim. Or this edit, which cites PubMed saying that it is a "widely held belief" and that it is wrong, you reverted saying there was "no evidence". Please keep in mind that wikipedia has no deadline. Further, we'd like to encourage new users to come back and edit (in fact, that's a pretty major goal, and would be fantastic for the project), and so we don't want to bite the flood of newcomers we're getting today. But most importantly, citation needed tags exist for a reason, and outright removing every claim by the standards you've been applying might not be the best way to go about this. If this had been going on for longer, I'd consider filing an RfC to get outside opinions, but as it is I'd like to simply bring it up with you. Perhaps you can loosen your standards for inclusion in the article for now -- if something has a reliable source like the New York Times or PubMed which says that it's prevalent and wrong, it might be appropriate for it to stay unless there's another compelling reason to discuss the addition first? All the best, Jess talk&#124;edits 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Misconception Article
regarding the Aluminum/Alzheimer's question, i thought i'd continue the discussion here instead of cluttering up the article (of course now i'm cluttering up your page). i've found a number of polls on the web that at least imply a lot of people are thinking of this: http://www.tastybrew.com/forum/thread/122775 http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/healthy_aging/is_there_a_connection_between_aluminum_and_alzheimers_disease http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1795141 i would say that the evidence that it is a misconception is at least as good as that of autism being caused by vaccines (although not quite as in the news). would you mind my including it in the misconception article and see how it flies? i would have done it anyway except that i respect your vigilance toward this article because there better not be any ambiguity in an article on misconceptions. Gobo2001us (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rooks
Hi Cresix

I linked to the Rook_(bird) article that listed the four collective nouns that I added to the list. Too meta? Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point about copying the references, I really should have done that. I'll go and do it now, thanks for the comments. Soupy sautoy (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Common misconceptions
Hi,

I posted on Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions a suggestion (Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_11) to add something about Galileo being sentenced to death. I am sorry to answer so late to your answer and this is why I am adressing you directly. You said it had already been discussed earlier, however I could not find this by searching the archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=galileo&prefix=Talk:List+of+common+misconceptions/&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search). Could you please tell me how to find the discussion, as I am curious to read why the idea was rejected.

Thanks

--92.132.249.76 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Just a note: you have reverted at least 3 times in the last 24 hours on List of common misconceptions; per WP:3RR you should avoid reverting again. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I do understand your point that being a mathematician doesn't necessarily help you know how common something is, but the Wikipedia policy is such that a reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source; it's very hard to second-guess them within policy without violating the NOR policy. Too often I have to deal with terrible sources, e.g. newspapers, that claim to know some mathematics but don't. But we have to find a way to work with these sources because they are reliable "by definition". I figure that if I have to put up with that absurd rule I may as well put it to use from time to time, if there are books by major academic presses that I can cite. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that sourced additions are especially likely to cause the article to be deleted. At least, I don't think they will increase the chance. Different people have different ideas about what misconceptions are worth including, and I could tell you the ones on the list I find dubious. The best we can hope for is to include ones that are sourced. At the same time, it isn't incoherent to know that a list might be deleted from being too general, but at the same time include items as long as they fit in the currently defined scope. I have seen very dodgy lists that were not deleted, for example List of persons considered father or mother of a field is an awful idea for a list but it is not deleted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions
Dear Cresix, you had a "not done" comment on my request to include the fact that energy is transported outside wires. I have included a reference since, and I wanted to ask you to reconsider your judgment or to tell me otherwise Mebg (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Olberman
About the Countdown with Keith Olberman (One) this is a public IP address, and (Two) I wasn't doing any disruptive editing. Countdown with Keith Olberman is over. I think your message to me is very over-reactionary. Calm down, take a breath and get over yourself. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Puffery
I'm sorry you took personal my comments, but you should really voice you personal comments towards me on my talk page since they should be of no use to any other reader and wiki policy frowns on such venting on article talk pages. But really, "superhuman"? Is there anyway to call that an accurate and helpful adjective? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could point me towards a link that explains how subjects of clauses override subjects of sentences when applying "who" or "whom", I would be most sincerely edified and obliged. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I made you feel put out and consequently curt. I appreciate the link, even if it was provided with reluctance. You seem to be right. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

srry
Sorry for that, the warning was supposed to go to an IP address. Sorry for the trouble, happy editing. =] Creation7689 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Clayton
Source added. Sorry about that. Kelly McGaw Staff Writer Hollywood Reporter --Mcgawkelly (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Innab
If you could draft something for ANI that would be great. It is hard for me where I am right now... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Donnell
Regarding you reverting my edit, did you notice that the sources used were: New York Observer, Irish Central, and Baltimore Sun. How exactly are they not reliable? And how can you cite WP:Weight and WP:Npov over one sentence and an external link? The external link is perfectly fine and gives some detail on his life and tv career. Truthsort (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take a look at WP:RS again. It says absolutely nothing about a source being unreliable simply for not being neutral. Maybe if you would have taken a look at WP:SPS you would see this "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. There are a bunch of sources that document O'Donnell criticizing O'Reilly. Given the brief time he has had in the new time slot, the fact that there are quite a few sources on it, indicate that he has used a good portion of his show criticizing him. Truthsort (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN means taking two different things and combining them to reach a conclusion. That's not being done here. You do not seem to have a full grasp of Wikipedia policies. If you want a detailed account of O'Donnell's criticism of O'Reilly then read this: Last week, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell devoted an unseemly share of his airtime to blasting Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly for his "relentless barrage of interruptions" of Barack Obama during Mr. O'Reilly's pre-Super Bowl interview with the president. Monday's line was that Mr. O'Reilly "failed more miserably than anyone who has ever gone before him" with executive access. On Tuesday, Mr. O'Donnell invited HBO pundit Bill Maher on air to affirm that Mr. O'Reilly's conduct was "unpatriotic." A segment later in the week deployed a clip from The Smurfs that a producer from Jimmy Kimmel Live! overdubbed with the interview, casting Mr. O'Reilly in the cartoon as the dreaded Gargamel Of course, you'll probably dismiss the source as unreliable for having a critical look on him. Truthsort (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

About Marilyn Monroe and IMDb 'extra' credits
I've started a discussion at Talk:Marilyn Monroe about this issue here and thought you would like to participate. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wal-Mart and WP:EL
About your edit from a month ago... WP:EL does not say "Only one link to an official site"

It simply says "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." - What constitutes a "minumum" is an editorial decision that editors of a page determine on a page by page basis.

In any case, the official site template now has a "mobile" parameter so the mobile version appears in parentheses, consolidating official site links. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is widely accepted on Wikipedia that external links in an article are limited to one per website. Otherwise, there could a link to WM corporate, WM Home and Garden, WM Pharmacy, WM Toys, etc. etc. etc."
 * May I see a link to a discussion that establishes this on a Wikipedia-wide basis?
 * Plus your argument presents an "either or" scenario which isn't true. Editors can always say "Let's link to these Wal-Mart sites, but not these ones" (as in "these sites are important, but it's not important to link to these domain names") - While there are cases where the "slippery slope" argument may be compelling, I do not believe this is one of them
 * About the "mobile" parameter, see the discussions External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_6 and Template_talk:Official_website - It reduces the number of ELs listed, but allows people to directly access mobile phone sites for reasons explained on the EL noticeboard pages.
 * "Perhaps, so that requires you (by WP:BURDEN) to seek and achieve a clear consensus at Talk:Wal-Mart before adding more than one link per website." - You mean both have to debate with each other before adding more than one link per website. If no consensus regarding links has been established, then it is up to the body of editors to create a consensus. And if there is a need for input from third parties, then you consult the EL noticeboard.
 * BTW: Talk:Wal-Mart
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

List of cheerleaders‎
Thanks for keeping an eye on List of cheerleaders‎. I apologize for my uncited addition. I truly wish I could cite the content that I added and hope to readd it properly in the future. Note on the talk page that I made some suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Erdős-Bacon number for Geoff Nunberg
So what's the problem with Nunberg's Erdős-Bacon number? He's in the films. Do I need to give all the paper citations? All the facts are there on Nunberg's website, which I cited to. (BTW I am not Nunberg.) Miiknaans (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

An Erdős number
Oh yes. Erdős starts with a vowel. In standard English that means the correct form of the indefinite article is an, as in He has an Erdős number. NOT He has a Erdős number. Miiknaans (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

IP edits and longevity articles
I noticed that you were having trouble with an IP making edits to longevity articles. There was an arbitration case that closed recently on that topic, so you might want to note that somewhere, or draw that to the attention of someone who might have time to look into this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: SNL 36
Did not realize that. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.217.190 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

??? RE: Portman
Are you blind or something? I didn't remove it. I simply moved it to the first line of the paragraph. Most articles do that. Look at Sarah Michelle Gellar and Yao Ming. Why is everything in her article so separate? And yes, it is overlinked. Estheroliver (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was more than a little fiesty about a simple edit (or two), but I was displeasured to see that you accused me of "first having seen 'only child' be removed, then removing it [myself]'?


 * Also, I added this comment to the other user's page:


 * And also, I did have this same discussion before awhile ago with a couple editors at the Yao page. They basically told me, "Nice suggestion, but it's considered an overlink and your idea violates MoS. Any English-speaking person would know what an only child is." He is also not American or originally English-speaking himself, and that really says something. So, there you go.
 * Estheroliver (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing Kill Bill. What I am saying is correct; therefore, that is not vandalism. The other person is referring to an uncut (SECONDARY) version of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.196.240 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons
Can I add the flag Icons next to the nationality in the info boxes ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zo3a (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RE. Gary Oldman
How come every actor that is to be in The Dark Knight Rises have it in their filmography on their wiki pages? Thank you. Bardan03 (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2011 (GMT)

There was a reason...
...My Deaf roommate in college said, "Those dumb hearing people!" ;) Oh, what's wrong with those deaf people? They're so sensitive!"  Anyway, I've chimed into the discussion.  Hope it wasn't too late.  If you want to sigh about it even more, get this discussion .  (Scroll down to the bottom.)  Golly, it follows me wherever I go!  At any rate, nice to hear from you, Cresix; keep up the good work, as always. Christine (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Zappa and backmasking
I've gotta say that I absolutely resent your threat of blocking me from editing because the citations I added to the "Won Ton On" entry didn't meet muster. Given my history of a responsible contributor to Wikipedia I absolutely, thoroughly resent it and I am trying very hard to maintain a professional tone. If I were vandalizing articles I'd understand...if I were posting lies I'd understand, but I posted ONE UNSOURCED ADDITION to the article, and then tried to add some sources. Instead of making threats that are entirely out of proportion to the situation why don't you suggest what sort of reference would be acceptable? Or just tell me to find a better source. But don't threaten to ban me or block me or whatever. PurpleChez (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see...the relationship of No Not Now/Won Ton On is discussed at the official Frank Zappa website...it's in discussion boards, which probably aren't acceptable, although the whole thing is overseen by Gail Zappa, almost infamous for her control over all things Zappa. The wikipedia article on the "Thing-Fish" album notes that Won Ton On is originally "No Not Now." Heck...now that I look at it the 'story' section of the wikipedia article states that the album/show closes with "a backwards rendition of the track No Not Now". I suppose this statement needs to come out. This citation -- http://starling.rinet.ru/music/frank1.htm#Fish -- was sufficient for another entry, and as it covers No Not Now/Won Ton On as well, I'm hoping that I can cite it without getting banned from Wikipedia. PurpleChez (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Wise
I reported the IP at WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Easy now. You've made a convincing argument regarding conversions. But fighting edit warring with edit warring rarely works, and in this case, had no effect on my seeing your point. And still, directing comments, angry or otherwise towards another editor in edit summaries should not happen. It was unneeded as can be and is completely against WP. All of this could have been settled easily and civilly on the talk page.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made no such an admission, but I think you have just copped to edit warring. I stopped reverting only when you finally produced a valid argument, after your weak ones. BTW, I hope you understand what edit summaries are not for. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kettle to pot? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and until the next episode...The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mod
Is she a model? Pass a Method  talk  23:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hayden Panettiere

Clarification
What unreliable source did I site in the ADHD article? Vogel2014 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Help request
Since you have done such a good job keeping List of common misconceptions properly sourced, perhaps you could help me with List of misquotations. Much of the article is unsourced, to which I have tried to delete content, but I seem to be in the minority. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks--Asher196 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Twenty-fifth Amendment
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyoma225 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live (season 36)
Perhaps you didn't read my edit summary. I removed the bold denoting that Seth Meyers appeared only as the Weekend Update anchor because Meyers appears (as himself) in the "Perspective Studios" sketch of the April 9, 2011 episode (699/36.19) hosted by Helen Mirren. Thank you. --Boycool (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good. --Boycool (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IPs problematic edits
Please see this on AN/I, which may interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Elena Kagan
I'm continuing here, as it is beyond the scope of Talk:Elena Kagan, not being directed to the improvement of the article.

I find the exclusion of neutrally reported verified accurate factual information from an article whose subject is a woman, while not excluding the equivalent  neutrally reported verified accurate factual information from an article whose subject is a man, is systemic bias reflecting some felt need that somehow the woman needs some sort of protection from having this information known that a man does not need. This is paternalistic and perpetuates the myth that women are not equal to men, and somehow require this extra protection. It assumes women require this special treatment and imposes it on them solely because of their gender, and gives credibility to and perpetuates the myth on which it is based. Kagan is a mature and powerful woman, and does not need Wikipedia editors to hide information to "protect" her from what readers might think by reading the same sort of information that is provided for other justices. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you have missed my point. Those of us who have expressed opposition to including the information about marriage and children have clearly stated that this kind of information should not be expected (although is not forbidden) for either men or women. So again, how is not including it in any way patronizing or a setback to women's rights?
 * And I really feel that this discussion does belong on the Kagan talk page because you made a comment there that I am asking you to explain. Unless you don't want people to know what your explanation is, of course. Cresix (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Who and Mrs. Robinson
Wow. This Doctor Who episode aired only today in Britain and has not yet aired yet in the USA (2nite at 6 Pacific Time - it's 1:47 PM now) and already someone posted something about a Mrs. Robinson reference to article on same!! I suspect that with context, it will probably be reasonably clear that it DOES refer to the character from The Graduate, since there's an ongoing issue with the current Incarnation of the Doctor being quite young, and River Song being a much older woman who in her past but in his future will be married to the Doctor (the complexities of Time Travel), but we shall see. However, one does need secondary sources for this sort of thing, I understand, partly just to establish cultural significance.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I had meant to drop you a note earlier stating it was very pleasant to work with you re disputatious material in the Lolita article, and just never got around to it, so allow me to state so now.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Re CenturyLink operating companies
I'm not sure that your getting my point in this dispute. The way the major landline companies are structured in the continental US is as a series of geographically defined local operating companies. This is true for AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier, et al. There is some complications and overlaps in terms of corporate structure, due to the various

The list in the CenturyLink navbox is not a list of predecessor companies, but a list of current operating units. See the navboxes for Template:AT&T and Template:Verizon for the pattern.

As for Carolina Telephone & Telegraph, it didn't cease to exist when Sprint bought it, it became a local operating company of Sprint. In turn it became an operating unit of Embarq when Sprint's local operations were spun off into that company, and after that became a local operating company of CenturyLink when they bought Embarq. CT&T didn't cease to exist, and has no current link with Sprint, so including it in the Sprint template would be factually incorrect. The CT&T article does need to be updated, as it was renamed "Untied Telephone System of North Carolina", but it still exists as a CenturyLink subsidiary.

TLDR version: CT&T, rather United Telephone System of North Carolina, does have a relationship with CenturyLink; it's one of it's local operating companies and belongs on the navbox's list of operating companies. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur wholeheartedly with needing RS. I found this from the FCC: . It still lists them as Embarq companies, but the CenturyLink site also makes clear that the Embarq companies are still extant as operating units. So I'm going to put the CT&T link back in the navbox, and work on updating the CT&T article. (Between levels of Angry Birds.) oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further digging around the FCC website yielded this PDF on the Embarq/CenturyLink merger. Page 5, under the "Description of the Transaction" section, states that "former Embarq subsidiaries will become wholly-owned subsidiaries of CenturyTel". It also yielded this PDF listing each company's local operating companies. It is from December 2010; the only change in wireline services since then is the merger of Qwest into CenturyLink, as a wholly-owned operating unit. CT&T is clearly listed as a unit of CenturyLink.


 * Actually, I have an even better idea. There's currently a List of Embarq operating companies that I've tagged for PROD. I'm going to de-prod it, move it to List of CenturyLink operating companies, and update it using this PDF as the source. That will lead to some changes in the template. I just ask that you don't revert them, as it's goig to be under construction for a small bit. PS, I'll take care of the CT&T article while I'm at it. oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. This will make for makes accurate and up to date articles. Can't dislike that. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Gloria Estefan
I just noticed that I apparently forgot to change the default edit summary in this edit. Although I used the undo function to generate a baseline for my edit, it was not a true undo, and the use of the default ES without explanation was certainly not intended to imply vandalism on your part. Sorry. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
You don't seem new to Wikipedia, so I'm confused as to why you think you can't have images of talk pages. If you read the guideline, WP:TALK, you will find this line: "Hiding or resizing images: You may hide an image once discussion of it has ended. This is especially appropriate for "warning" and "alert" icons included in bot-posted notices which are usually quickly resolved. Another common image-related edit is re-sizing images that were posted in full size and take up too much room on the talk page."--Asher196 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My intention wasn't to start a dispute. Sorry if I came across that way.--Asher196 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

songs L/M gave away
It's interesting you want to maintain false info on WP. Why? It can't be good for your rep. No source supports the false fact that L/M were "prolific" (much less "especially prolific") prior to 1/1/1960. The music (not lyrics) to "When I'm 64," the NOT L/M (it's M/H) INSTRUMENTAL (never covered) "In Spite of all the danger," "Hello Little Girl," "I'll Follow the Sun" -- THAT'S IT!!!! That's PROLIFIC? Seriously -- DUDE! What personal, emotional investment do you have to fight for this utterly false statement, that motivates you to continue to obstruct attempts to correct it? Obviously, you don't care whether or not WP is factual -- what's important to you is to sustain your fantasies.63.17.59.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

User rights
Hi Cresix, I noticed you mentioned your age over on Talk:List of common misconceptions. Few of us Wikipedians are likely to remember rotary telephones, black and white television (with tubes, not transistors), "hi fi" monaural recordings, and tail fins on cars. You're 10 years ahead of me though.

OK, to the point of this message: I noticed also that you have a good editing history across a broad spectrum of articles, and your activity suggests you need some additional user rights. So, I have granted you WP:REVIEWER and WP:ROLLBACK rights.

As a reviewer, you have the ability to accept or reject changes made to articles under pending change protection (PCP). There aren't many articles protected that way at the moment because PCP was in a brief trial last year and is currently being prepared for redeployment. I indef-semi-protected List of common misconceptions in January but if PCP is applied in the future it will be useful to you.

As a rollbacker, you will now see a "rollback" link next to the "undo" link. Clicking it will revert all sequential edits by the same user. It's a convenience, but please use this feature only for reverting obvious vandalism or disruptive edits, because you have no control over the edit summary. For other reverts, continue using "undo".

If you decide you don't want either of these rights, let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
I have see Amy Adams page at World Rally Championship Wiki at Wikia 2 days ago. I don't know who is created that page at Wikia that she is a rally driver. Can you see it? --Nestor1010 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction
Pulp Fiction is going through a GA review and has been placed on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1.  SilkTork  *Tea time 19:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Osteo
First ref says "patients have expressed concern that continued exercise might lead to knee symptoms in later years" which indicates that it is a common misconception. The second ref states "Common urban legend suggests that KC will lead to arthritis of the hand joints" BTW full access is free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi
Hi Cresix, is everything OK? I know that we have had our differences in the past, but it was never my intention that you drop out of editing Wikipedia completely. Your input is valued and most welcome. I just wish that we could discuss major changes to List of common misconceptions a little more first before implementing them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Clothing laws
I think the article Clothing laws by country is badly in need of expansion. Only 5/6 countries on this list. Do you know any refs we could use for expansding it? Pass a Method  talk  20:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

hello, I recently logged into wikipedia and noticed a message saying I have new messages. I have never signed up for an account with wikipedia. I read the message which states its' from you, with the date of april 2011, but it's not my ip address on it, it also says that I edited info on a page about someone from twilight movies, I have never made any changes to this website (I've never been on it at all as I don't like and never have liked twilight). the message disappeared once I read it. I am very confused. can you please explain to me what's on the go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.230.26 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning Directed at Ip address 99.58.119.66
Hi.

For one, I barely signed up for an account today when I got the warning.

Two, I am clueless as to how to make edits to Wikipedia and I never have, so how can I be threatened to be blocked from using Wikipedia when I have NEVER made an edit whatsoever?!!? Never mind the fact that it was regarding a topic that I know absolutely nothing about in the first place. Truthfully, it took me about an hour just to figure out how to contact you to begin with.

Thanks.

--Valerie

Valerieabear (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)