User talk:CutOffTies/archive5

Jim Fargiano article deletion
I don't understand why you're so hell-bent on deleting the Jim Fargiano article. There are articles on other mediums that don't seem to have nearly as much opposition, yet have far fewer claims of notability and sources-jlab2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlab2005 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With a section consisting of "Jim also has an online blog which which he writes the messages.", I'm shocked the Article For Deletion went with Delete.  I suggest reading the links in the welcome message on your talk page, as a start.  Good luck. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

citation of warren doyle for appalachian trail article
I believe adding a sentence about Warren Doyle to the Appalachian Trail article would enrich it, as he is the ALDHA founder & unofficial record holder for the most complete trail hikes by a lot. HOWEVER, I don't know what citation of this would be considered solid enough for Wiki standards.


 * 1)  Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine listed him outdoor person of the year, and lists 14 complete, 1 partial, and 1 planned ATC hikes. (http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/january-2010/outdoor-person-of-the-year/)

(http://www.aldha.org/newsletr/spring03.pdf)
 * 1)  A spring 2003 ALDHA newsletter lists him as having completed 12 ATC hikes and having been a speed record holder 1973-1978.

(http://www.aldha.org/larry.htm and http://www.aldha.org/doyle.htm)
 * 1)  In the book "Walking the Appalachian Trail", Larry Luxenberg includes a profile of him listing 10 complete ATC hikes.


 * 1) A 1995 Sports Illustrated article lists him as having completed 5 ATC hikes, being the ALDHA founder, and having been the speed record holder. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006961/1/index.htm)

By the way, I agree that this addition does not belong in the lead section, but rather in the trail completion section. I would appreciate your help with this.

Thanks

LynneMD80 (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)LynneMD80


 * The Sports Illustrated article is certainly the most reliable source, and a huge improvement on the Blue Ridge Outdoors one.  I would go with that and leave out the others.  The Trail completion section, as an addition to the paragraph with Andrew Thompson, seems like the best area.  Nice job on finding those refs.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Darrius Heyward-Bey
Sorry for going off on Darrius back in November of 09. But i was just so pissed off with him because he bobbled a ball he could have caught near the end of the game and it was intercepted which ended the game. So i was just stating the truth and I hoped that he would have saw it. Won't vandalize a page again. Unless he blows a game again next year. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiderfanforever99 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Welch
I just wanted to say good luck at FAC with Gillian Welch. I'm just about to nominate an article as well. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again I.M.S! As said in my nom, it benefited a lot from the GA nom.  I was hoping for more PRs, and I'm pretty busy now, but I figured why not.  Oh, I saw the Kinks got FA.  Congratulations!  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try to help out and perform some copyediting, and I'll probably make some comments at the FAC page. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I saw it didn't go all the way unfortunately, but kudos for improving the article from here :) Hekerui (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto—you've done a great job, Omarcheseboro, even if some people didn't find that it fulfilled the FA criteria. I would seek out a good copyeditor to polish up the prose, and re-submit it when you're ready. Regards, - I.M.S. (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I appreciate the kind words. I'm glad I went through FA - the writing can certainly use some improvement and it was a good way to get some more specific feedback.  I know a couple copyeditors that I'm trying to get help from. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

CDI contributions
Hmm... someone has raised the issue of spamming regarding my additions. Don't quite understand how what UVMCDI has been doing could be considered spamming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvmcdi (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Jwh3
Hello, I am messaging you due to your involvement in a sockpuppet case of a user called James Hunter aka:. A year ago he tried to create an article about himself, making friends and influencing people in the subsequent AFD by socking and personal attacks. Now he has returned as and has created another article. Ryan 4314  (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt it's the same user. The 2008 one didn't have anything to do with Australia. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read through Jwh3's former contribs and I concur, our original James Hunter is from Decatur, Alabama and don't forget was a local celebrity. You have to admit though, what a coincidence lol! Could you do me a favour please, add to his sockpuppet case, for ease of searching contribs.  Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It says on the SP case page not to modify it. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray Lewis
Why did I get a warning? I'm pretty sure the incident was murder... I mean I could be wrong but I could have sworn that he was on trial for murder, not for 2000 Incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.87.148 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a section header entitled "2000 murder" does not indicate the subject was on trial for murder; it strongly suggests that it is a fact that the subject committed murder. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelley Washington
Hello, I was wondering why you removed the Stephens City, Virginia category from the Kelley Washington page. Thanks... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and Timothy T. O'Donnell. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * People should go in the categories "People from ___" not just the name of the city.  See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people.  Make sure to read all of Bearcat's answer, as he misunderstood my question at first.  Thanks.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Stephens City isn't big enough to have a "People From..." category, which is why I used the standard Stephens City category. Stephens City is kind of a dot :)  Ya blink and you miss us kinda town.  I could make a "People From..." category, but I fear it will be deleted. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a big hiker, though coming from DC I go south on 81 from Front Royal. Anyhow, I have done quite a bit of moving "People from _anystate_" to "People from _anycounty_, _anystate_", and have created several new categories for rural counties. Some of them may only have one or two entries, but the category is not deleted. I don't know if it's because nobody notices or cares, or perhaps there's really nothing wrong with lightly populated location cats as long as it accurate. I would go ahead with creating the new category.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, I will make the new category. Oh and if you would go north on 81 (toward Winchester) you would pass by Stephens City.  You are just about 5 miles from Stephens City when you make that left unto 81 south from 66. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * New category at Category:People from Stephens City, Virginia. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok... oh, and no need to have the two in the People from Frederick County cat anymore, since they're in the subcat. Thanks --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will fix that posthaste. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Fixed :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jevan Snead
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jevan Snead. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jevan Snead (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Francis L. Hawks
What do you mean by your comment "looks odd because the encyc. was published at a later date but assuming good faith"?

Did you not notice the link to the online scanned book? It was published in 1856.

I object to your burying the paragraph about the Cyclopaedia under the heading "Scandal and later life". This was a very significant work, not to be confused with the 1887 multivolume work by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske.

Please revert your change or I shall do it.

I shall watch this page for your reply.


 * Please read wp:lead. If the content is that important, then it should be introduced in the lead and then detailed later on. Also your addition is unsourced.  I'm sorry that I apparently got the cyclopedia's mixed up.  Thanks  Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your user page made a good impression on me, so please believe I am taking a friendly approach in what follows.


 * Regarding importance, perhaps the entire article on Hawks ought to be deleted, since his entry was dropped from the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the 14th edition (1929). But certainly for me, his editing of Appletons' Cyclopedia of Biography is more important than his role as a preacher, lawyer, or focus of scandal. It is important to note that he was the editor, but there is no need for elaboration of the fact.


 * Regarding the sourcing of my addition, I thought a link to the online scanned book substantiated the claim. If another source says he edited the book, is that worth more than its existence at archive.org?


 * Further, where is the sourcing for the claim "Hawks's work on church history remains important today"? Where is the sourcing for the statement that he "collected the abundant materials afterwards utilized in his Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of U.S.A."? Where is the sourcing for the very existence of Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of U.S.A?


 * It appears to me that you jumped on my addition when there were much more serious problems with the article.


 * Now I shall digress, and invite your comments. I could use Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography as a source, but I fear that someone who doesn't understand the details would screech for the pejorative tag "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Appleton's Cyclopedia". Note that the geniuses didn't even spell the name properly. It is Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. Further, why the use of the ligature? I can't search with the ligature, I have to hope "cyclop" will do the trick. Xophist (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about the subject of the article, and you seem very familiar with it. I was fine with your revert of me, but just wanted to point out a couple of the policies here.  Good luck --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Fixing Vandalism
Hey Omarcheeseboro,

This is Ewebb49, and i just wanted to thank you for helping me revert vandalism to the Buffalo Soldier page. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing (as you cold tell by the quality of my UserPage) and am very apalled at the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia at any given moment. I would love a few pointers on how to really start contributing more to Wikipedia besides just reverting obvious vandalism(although there is nothing wrong with just reverting vandalism). Any tips would be appreciated...

Thanks a bunch, Ethan Webster 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewebb49 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi EWebb, if you're using Firefox or another non IE browser, I highly suggest installing wp:twinkle. It makes doing all kinds of editing, including reverting vandalism, much easier. Also, if you're not already, I would frequently check your wp:watchlist


 * I agree that the vandalism is out of control. One thing to check out is wp:flagged revisions. Hopefully that will be implemented soon. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the help. I am using Safari so i will download wp:twinkle as soon as i have time. Thanks again for your kind help.

Ethan Webster 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewebb49 (talk • contribs)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of most popular cat names
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of most popular cat names. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Trail BC
I came across the information in an environmental law section, and had to do some research on it, since there was zero on Wikipedia, and I tried to add it to the easiest place (Trail, BC). But I didn't want to start a whole new article for the little information that I came across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefeyboy (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the barnstar. Hopefully the article can move forward productively from here. Much appreciated.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 12:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheraton Macao Hotel
Hi. You PRODded this article, but it has been PRODded and dePRODded before, so per WP:DEL it cannot be PRODded again. You are welcome to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should've checked to see if it was prod'd before. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucille clifton image
Really instead of trying to delete it you should see if you can improve it. If the rationale can be fixed, you could do that. The replaceable bit needs to be sorted out, someone has to look for a free image. The justification has to be added that she is dead and cannot be photographed. Is the image the best one to use? has it been widely published and therefore well known?

You can use  but a speedy delete is out of order as it might be fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.. I may look into it later. It initially struck me as blatant copyrightvio so I wanted to make sure the article didn't have one. I see now because of the Fair Use that it isn't. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Help
Hello -- I think it's inevitable that the film will eventually have its own article (and I'm kind of assuming that whatever's currently in that section of the novel's article will become the basis for the film article), but according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (particularly the one at WP:NFF), movies aren't supposed to have their own articles until they start filming. So if an article was created now for the film, it would probably just get merged back. Once it's reported that filming has started this summer, I'd think there'd be no disagreement that the news coverage of the production warrants a separate article.

I agree that the film stuff is starting to overwhelm the novel's article (which is largely my fault -- I went looking yesterday for information about the novel's sales, and what I found was all these stories about the movie) but I think a lot more information about the novel could be added, that would place the movie more into its proper relative context. WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate seems to be a good guide for expanding the article; I may try to work on adding some of this information in the near future. Propaniac (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not know about the notability guideline for films. I do agree that the novel's content could be greatly expanded --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

William Smithers edit
Hi there,

I think possibly you've been a bit cruel in your recent edit to the William Smithers page. The information you deleted was added by "user: Bilwil" who I'm pretty certain is Mr Smithers himself. Maybe you should invite him to provide more details/a confirmatory reference?

Regards Queen Griddle (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Queen Griddle


 * this is an encyclopedoa, not a place for unsourced trivia about a tv show. All content should be backed by significant coverage in  reliable sources --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: P.J. Snow
Thank you for your assistance in trying to clean up my page.

I apologize but I'm more of a senior citizen (born 1949) than I am a computer wiz and am having trouble trying to fix my entry P.J. Snow. Under the heading 'Scientific Research Publications', the links 'scientific studies' and 'PubMed' takes you to 'third party references' which are independent journals in which Dr Snows work has been reviewed by other scientists and subsequently published in well respected science/medical journals ie; Science, Lancet, The Journal of Physiology, Neuroscience Letters, Journal of Experimental Biology, to name a few.

Have I put these in the wrong place? Is there any way you could possibly help me remove the article tags as I am completely bewildered now and very soon will have more tags than article. Thank you once again - your help is very much appreciated. 2BPKP (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the sources tag per your comment. Why would a tag make you bewildered?  Perhaps this is a reason not to edit an entry about yourself.  Please see wp:autobiography.

Thank you once again for removing the tag - it isn't actually the removing of the tags, it is the fixing of the problems that has me bewildered. BTW this is not an autobiography as I am not P.J. Snow. Unlike me he is probably intelligent enough to fix this himself. Thank you once again for your time. 2BPKP (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks, im just getting used to it. that place is also a tourist attraction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitusha232 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

xdead10 greenwood maine
sorry about that it was for an in class demonstration i was going back to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdead10 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Shalane Flanagan 2009 Boston.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Shalane Flanagan 2009 Boston.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Paula Jean Welden
I added references to everything I have written on this entry. The only other citation needed refers to other disappearances that are often discussed in the same articles including Paula Welden. These are mentioned in a Wikipedia entry titled Bennington Triangle.

Let me know if you need anything else to improve this entry.

Mcarroll72  Mcarroll72 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice job, it looks good. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup
Can you work it into your schedule? We would like to include you in our count. Racepacket (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

what is wrong....
please tell me why you have given me a warning? i am only typing the truth about the goings on on these radio shows, .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obxercle (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

i am new to wiki, so explain what is going on with "sockpuppet...." whatever....

i never put anything horrible on those pages, there are indeed tons of prank calls on these shows talking about these topics..... i listen every day, i am sure you don't... rj the movie critic is notorious for not watching the new releases, riz gets tons of prank calls, and reghi's whole bump and run segment was prank callers talking about the subjects i posted..... and he does freak out on the air....

tell me what i can and can't do on wiki....i thought it was for user contributions..... can i start my own page on these topics and post what i want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obxercle (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you can't use Wikipedia to post about these "topics". Perhaps you should start a blog. I believe myspace has blogs, use those. See wp:help if you really want to contribute constructively. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Overboard?
First of all, I am a big Gillian Welch fan, so thanks for your work on her page.

When you reverted the changes I made to the MS Access page, you also removed a link to WaveMaker that had been there for months: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_access#Alternative_software

Please correct.

Ctkeene (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are what is wrong with wikipedia
You *could* have sourced my edits yourself - but you would rather get your rocks off on a little power trip I guess. Nice how you went out of your way to look at anything I edited recently and did the same lazy revert. Why didn't you revert my edit on macrolife and fictional elements? They were unsourced.

How about not being lazy and helping flesh out articles instead of your little overlord act? It is easier to discourage than to inspire - you like the lazy way I guess.

I think I may do a google alert on your tag and make sure follow EVERY possible rule and regulation on everything you do. The chances of your work getting "corrected" will be directly proportional to the amount of effort you put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's guidelines:
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
 * It is lazy to add content without proper sourcing. On other hand, cleaning up a mess is not lazy. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that sourcing those edits YOURSELF was not amongst the range of options available to you? Pasting in what you just did is not only a smart-ass move, it is also again the lazy one.

Congrats on being consistent. Why not help wikipedia move FORWARD instead of being a overly officious jerk? Hmmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with Wikipedia's guideline of removing unsourced contentious content on sight, you're talking to the wrong person. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is impossible to do the normal human thing and just fix it? Even if true, what would have prevented you from fixing it anyways? Someone going to bust down your door and jack you up? I think you are hiding behind technicalities whilst still getting your jollies pushing people around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You entered the content. It's up to you to source it. If you think the reason why unsourced content about people getting DUIs is removed is due to "technicalities", then you don't understand Wikipedia at all.
 * Out of curiosity, I did a google search on Bowden and the pitcher. A cursory look shows only a brief Washington Post mention with a quote from Bowden.  Nothing that comes close to supporting what you wrote.  I'm not saying that your content is false, or couldn't be sourced with a little time and effort, but why should I do it?  As stated above, it's best for Wikipedia to get it right.  That means removing unsourced information.  If you care enough, revert my edit, find a reliable source, and properly source the content.
 * If you look at the top of this page, you'll see an editor did that instead of whining. Seemed to work out well.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2684794 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-05-19-4260931053_x.htm

You seem to like to argue on points where you feel like you have a winning position - they are just not the points I brought up. That is a nice strategy.

Where you said "If you think the reason why unsourced content about people getting DUIs is removed is due to "technicalities","

Where did I say that? Basically you are trying to shift the discussion from me saying that you are a asshole to me railing against wikipedia. Where did I not acknowledge the rule in question? I look forward to seeing what random direction you take the argument to now.

As to why *you* should do it... Well, in theory you are on here to help out the project - right? I'm sure that is how you see yourself. If it just so happens that you get to lord over others while following the letter (but not the intent) of the law - all the better.

If you *really* want to help wikipedia I would think that perhaps helping to ADD correct and verifiable information would be part of what you do.

If you look at the RESULT of your actions (as opposed to your *stated* intent) it would be hard to deny that you not only purged correct and easily verifiable information, you did it in such a way as to discourage and disillusion the person trying to help the project.

I'd like to see you deny that.

You seem not to want to address the point I have made repeatedly that YOU easily could have simply added the needed citations. Instead you want to emphasize your saint-like adherence to the rules while simply ignoring the idea that YOU could have acted differently and helped the project.

Worse yet, you are citing rules that are meant to prevent malicious individuals from defaming living persons by adding patently false information to their article - despite the fact that what I added was NOWHERE close to that.

You know I often check the citations on mainstream wikipedia articles only to find that the linked page has been deleted or moved. By YOUR application of the rules, I should summarily delete whole sections of articles no matter how long the information was there. By your argument, I am COMPELLED to do so. You have stated that YOU have no responsibility to try to do anything positive to fix anything, so instead of me figuring out where the link moved to or finding another citation I should instead SLASH the offending information from the article without any thought or personal responsibility at all.

Here you go: [Enola_Gay]]

This is LITERALLY the first article I tried just now. TWO of the citations link to non-existent pages (2 & 5). Other citations are unverifiable (4 & 10). Citation 3 is a book - how do we know that the citation is *really* in that book? Do we need to read it?

And how about citation 4? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It seems that out of 11 citations, 6 fail to meet up to wikipedia's standards. I'll give you until tomorrow to fix or delete the offending sections of this article. Why should YOU do it? Well, why did YOU feel the need to screw with my hard work? Just do it for the same reason.


 * If the information is correct and so easily verifiable, why do you keep on writing here instead of adding the citations? That's why the type of reverts I did should not be a big deal to you. Revert my revert, add the cite and it's no longer an issue.


 * I generally think it is a good idea to aggressively remove any unsourced content here. The content can easily be inserted back, and then the editor will be motivated to source it.   Still,  adding a  tag at the end of non-controversial information is recommended.  Your edits were about someone getting a DUI and a rules violation. At the top of every biography of a living person edit page you should notice it says: "'This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately'"


 * As for your questions about sources, I suggest reading reliable sources. This is the end of the discussion, if you have a problem with Wikipedia policy contact someone else. Goodbye  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you seem to be unable to deal with the fact that my problem was with YOU - not wikipedia policy. YOU. NOT WIKIPEDIA. You must not have much confidence in yourself or your arguments. You have no problem making summary judgements against people but cower when asked to explain yourself. Nice personality there buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at Georgetown/GWU
Hi Omarcheeseboro, thanks for your interest in the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role. More details about this role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell:

The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add references, how to add images, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Wikipedia articles, for example by setting up Wikipedia-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events. In general they will become known as Wikipedia experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Georgetown University or George Washington University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3 to 5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at Georgetown University or GWU, I would like to send you the application form. What email address can I send this to? (Feel free to email me this info if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org).

Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you soon!

Annie Lin, Campus Team Coordinator Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the inaccuracy that was originally posted on the Brown Bear Attack 2010 page of Wikipedia. I appreciate your help since I'm unfamiliar with editing on this site. I have often used it for gleaning information, but I have a lot to learn on the editing end. Since I am Ewrin F. Evert's daughter, I have more accurate information than the press.....thank you again for correctly citing the information for me....minou2

Steve Blake
Signing to LA Lakers is per an interview with his sister @ 3:08 PM PST on KXTG "95.5 The Game", the local radio station in Portland, during "The Bald-Faced Truth with John Canzano". It is completely legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.220.138 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you should wait until it is done with and official and you can verify it with reliable sources. There's no rush. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You were right
I thought about your arguments about how you were only following orders and all. So I decided to look around. As it turns out, Matt Hasselback and Trent Dilfer's pages were horribly unsourced. So I removed the offending sections. Don't worry, I gave you credit.

I feel so much better. Before I was liable to carefully write up useful information based on my extensive knowledgebase. But what you do is *so* much easier. I can destroy the work of others in a fraction of the time it took me to create something. When I read an article I used to think how I could add more information. Now that you have shown me the wonders of hiding behind the rules whilst gleefully deleting the hard work of others - that is my mission now.

As much as you discouraged and disheartened me with your "cut off your nose to spite your face" attitude towards "contributing", you have proportionally inspired me to follow your wondrous lead. Well played man.

Jim Bowden article
It looks like there is an error in one of the citations you made to this article. I'd fix it, but I am not sure what is wrong with it. Zilla1126 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it has been corrected.  Oh, and it wasn't one of the citations I made, it's one of the ones you made. See what you did with the Perez content here   --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Michael McCrary's article
Hello.

I am new to Wikipedia. Michael McCrary and his family has done a plethora of charity work over the years, and a lot of my own blood, sweat and tears went into it.

There is no mention of any of it on Wikipedia, I thought it should be there. I will go to other athletes pages and see how they have it cited.

I wish to add information on that, and some personal information so that people can see he also has a human side.

I did not tag my information correctly. Rather than simply delete it, could you help me edit it the right way?

We are trying VERY hard to get help and funding to reinstate the Baltimore Police Athletic League in a private, donation driven way, and this would help a lot. You can assist us in changing the lives of many thousands of children, over a lifetime.

I am hoping that you will be magnanimous, and simply teach me the correct way to interface with this medium. I culled information from articles in the Baltimore Sun, and cited them. Do I need to cite them differently?

Do I need to contact their writers to gain permission to post them, and if so, how do I post them correctly, i.e., do I need to provide you with paper copy of the right to publish from them?

Any assistance you can give me would be appreciated. I have read the statement, "Be nice to the newbies" on here, can I call in that statement, please?

Sincerely,

Golem4246barc (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Answered on user talk page. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)