User talk:Davidpdx/Archive03

This is an archive, Do not edit it in any way! If you want to leave me a message please use the current talk page

Archive January 1st 2007 to December 31st 2007

Diana Lucas
You mentioned 544 google hits as a failure criterion for Diana Lucas. Is there a WP guideline for the quantity of google hits?

Thanks.

--Kevin Murray 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no set number that I know of, but it does reinforce the idea that she is non-noteable and not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Shelley Shannon
Why did you add the "murderer" category to Shelley Shannon's page? She has murdered no one. Tim Long 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I did, but if I did then it must have been a long time ago. Davidpdx 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Richard Jeppson.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Richard Jeppson.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history and there is your upload, my tagging, and your removal, and there isn't anything on the talk page, so where is the previous discussion? It doesn't matter if you are certain the image is a military photo, you must provide a source so that any editor can determine the same. You are perhaps a little biased since it is your grandfather. And there are possible alternatives such that the image is not a "military photo" (meaning a work of the US Federal Government), such as a personal photo, or an AP photo or... the list is endless. And just because your grandfather is standing in front of the Enola Gay, doesn't make it a work of the military. I was in uniform standing in front of the Northeast Gate in Guantanamo Cuba, but the image is far from a military photo and more a personal photo since I was just "sightseeing". Is your grandfather still alive? You could ask him the circumstances around this image. If it's just a buddy that took a picture of him, then you could release it under another license other than US-PDGov. And the image will be deleted at the earlier 7 days from when I tagged it. The 48 hours is for fair use images which this probably isn't. If you have more questions, please let me know. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a free image, so use it at will. You could even crop out the other two and reupload it onto commons (under a different filename) and the image would still be public domain with your edits you could license freely too. Don't worry about the image getting deleted because you don't have enough time. You have the image saved, so you can reupload it at anytime. Better yet, the image can be undeleted from Wikipedia too. So contact your grandfather, wait for a reply from the website(s) and it will all work out in the end and probably for the best. There is no hurry, Wikipedia can wait. -- MECU ≈ talk 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful, as we already knew that images by the government are in the public domain. The problem is where the image comes from. What URL did you get the image from? Did you get it from a URL? -- MECU ≈ talk 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have saved a lot of trouble if you had just provided this URL to begin with. That was the point of my original tag, that there was no source. Giving the URL when you uploaded or when I tagged the image would have saved lots of time. You should always provide a URL, or other source, when you upload an image. Rant over. Sorry if I was a little harsh. Anyways, put that URL on the image and everything will be fine. Further, you should upload a larger, un-cropped version like this one since it's free anyways. You can upload the larger image over the smaller one and keep the same filename. If you need help or have questions, please feel free to ask. -- MECU ≈ talk 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good, except you don't need to say "Fair Use". It's not fair use, it's FREE! That's even better. Fair Use is usable only on copyrighted images, which this isn't. You can edit it to remove that, or not. Most people won't care and just see the .mil url and the free license and move on. Anyways, glad to get all this cleared up, and thank you for working on it. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Eslcafe
Hi - actually I've had those two pages on my watchlist for a while but as it's a subject I don't really care that much about (I think I would vote to have the pages deleted if there was an AfD for them) I kind of gave up on trying to keep them neutral. I noticed that every once in a while someone on a board would bring up the article and say something like "Yaaah, let's go attack the Dave's page!" and they'd fool around with it for a bit. I guess I should have reverted the edits but if the lack of quality of the article gets it deleted faster, so much the better I suppose. ^^ Since you requested though I'll keep a better eye on it and make sure nobody messes up your edits. Mithridates 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Solkope and DoM
Hi David. I am a Rotuman person and the incident involving Solkope and the ridiculous DOM claim on the island, while ridiculous, is still part of our history, although a poorly documented incident, and I believe should be part of that article. Pls explain the debate that was had on the topic and why that information is no longer there. Thanks Matt Bray 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did I do that work, for nothing? Everything I wrote came from the valid sources I cited, a court case, university web site and a published article, and if you search google there is much more. Can't you just rewrite it to suit you fear of, or hatred for the evil DOM instead of reverting it? You've been able to add stuff yourself in the past that was missing from the article. Harvardy 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am warning you, do not leave messages on my talk page. Davidpdx 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this little exchange when you're next in the mood for more whacky mind-bending blather from the High Priest of Melchizedek. I laughed until I stopped. --Gene_poole 04:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up to let you know that another POV-pushing lunatic sockpuppet stalker I've encountered recently, Doktor Who, has shown up on Harvardy's talk page, and, if history is anything to go by, he may start harrassing you as well. The added bonus in his case is that he has limited command of the English language, so most of what he says sounds like someone on a bad acid trip. Oh, and did I mention he has at least 2 other active sock accounts? Enjoy! --Gene_poole 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review
Greetings! In January, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rotuman
Hi Davidpx,

Long time no chat! I'm slowly assembling a Wikipedia to be in Rotuman and hereby invite you to vote for it's inclusion here. Please help me bring this dream for such an important resource into reality.

Thanks and Noa'ia! Mattbray 08:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Harvardy
I don't know what the hell the situation is, but cut it out. If you have suspicions that the user is sock, write up a WP:SSP page or file a WP:ANI report or something productive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to, as you did to [[:]]. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. , the blanking of the talk page of the anon ip that has vandalized Harvardy's talk page is very inappropriate, and may be seen as vandalism. -Doktor Who 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doktor Who please cease leaving messages on my talk page. Any further messages will be considered harrassment. Davidpdx 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I posted before seeing your second message. Eagerly await email. --Gene_poole 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He's back at it again. Check out . He's also begun posting tendentious edits to talk:Principality of Hutt River. It seems that getting a helping hand from Doktor Who has emboldened him. --Gene_poole 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he's about to self-destruct. He's just reverted 125.212.108.206 for the 4th time. Do you want to report him? --Gene_poole 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We have liftoff! One down, one to go. --Gene_poole 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo
Usually, I put comments at the bottom of the talk but I decided in the Dokdo case to put it at the top as it was about Wikipedia policy, and that article suffers greatly because people seem not to understand it especially for the naming issue. But I have no problems with you moving it to the bottom.

Interesting about your Grandfather being on the flight crew of Enola Gay. I don't know if you have read the book Ruin from the Air which tells the story from the point of view of the crew preparing for the operation. Out of print now but I found it fascinating. Macgruder 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Wikimachine 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

I hate to...
use Wikipedia as a social outlet (so lame), but I was bored and browsing the ranks of fellow PDX Wikipedians. I myself have talked with teachers who've taught abroad and it always seemed like something I would be good at and enjoy. What has your Korean experience been like? In regards to the employment environment, is it just a high-tech Thailand or is it practically Mongolia? Or worse yet, the EU! Any thoughts on the matter would be gladly excepted. VanTucky 05:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew conditions and pay were better (relatively anyway) than Thailand, I just meant...are there opportunities for any American who can hack it at the gutter jobs or do you need at least a BA? Obviously the pay/conditions are commensurate with the your qualifications wherever you go, but some have a minimum it seems. Thank you! VanTucky 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture Section in the Enola Gay Article
copied from the discussion on my own talk page

I've removed the pop culture section in the Enola Gay article again. There are multiple issues with the pop culture section and the OMD reference. The song does have a implied reference to the Enola Gay mission, but again I believe there needs to be sourcing involved in adding the reference. The other part of the problem is that the pop culture section is that because there has been no criteria for adding entires, it has been abused by users adding such trivial things as cheat codes. At one point the pop culture section had so many things in it that it started to detract from the quality of the article itself.

I hope you'll take these things into consideration and read what has been said on the talk page rather then reverting it back. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the objection specifically to the reference to the song (which needs to be linked by disambiguation, at the very least), or to the existence of the whole section? My suspicion is the latter - the song's references to the mission are explicit (unless the quotes in the song are unique to the Sash! edit that appeared on The OMD Remixes EP). Kinitawowi 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally have never heard the song, but I have looked up the lyrics online. I believe that the song could be adequately sourced if someone would take the time to do it properly. The problem is everytime it's added, there are no sources to back it up.


 * Yes, most of my objection is to any pop culture section in the article. The problem being that people are not being responsible about adding things and no one else is willing to clean it up other then me. We have on the talk page talked about possible solutions, one of which was to set guidelines for entries on the articles. Unfortunately, there was no real effort put behind any of the ideas and it pretty much died.


 * As I've stated, my objection is that the pop culture section bogs down the article too much because you have multiple anon IP's adding stupid stuff. The article and the event is of historical significantance, I think it really degrades the quality of the article by allowing just about anything to be added. In short, it's become a free pass for any reference regardless of the significance to be added.


 * I'm open to listening to possible solutions to this, but I feel just randomly readding the song without a reference doesn't work. Davidpdx 11:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to do it, then, is probably by simply disambiguating at the top of the article in the usual way - something like


 * This article is about the bomber. For the OMD song inspired by/about/alluding to the Hiroshima bombing, see Enola Gay (song).


 * and deal with the referencing at the actual Enola Gay (song) article (the official OMD website provides adequate sourcing, I think). That then acknowledges the song and it's inspiration without it being in a trivia section. Kinitawowi 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
A checkuser request has been filed for your username and several others: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lions3639 --Reuben 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Koramdi?
I saw you mentioned someone called Koramdi was harrassing you. You don't mean me, do you? I'm not sure what action you misinterpretted as harassment, but perhaps you'd have better luck resolving issues by letting the parties involved know whatever your issue is before you go around saying you've been grievously wronged. Likely, there's a simple explaination. --Cheers, Komdori 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do mean you because of your involvement with Parceboy. It's clear you two are working together to harrass users. If you don't like that accusation, tough. Davidpdx 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you must have a long history with Parsecboy that I know nothing about. I believe I ran into him for the first time about a week ago (check our edit logs if you like).  I know nothing of your conflict with him prior to that page, and I have interacted with you all of about twice.  As I said before, I'm not sure what you mean by "harass." He had accused you of sockpuppetry in a kind of suspicious case on a page (where you coincidentally had expressed concern about sockpuppets, it's not like it wasn't on people's minds).  Subsequently a checkuser was filed probably based on that and other irregularities.  The RFCU was just to clear things up because it was a little suspicious, and to make sure everything was on the up-and-up.  Unfortunately it came back positive, as a confirmation that you are indeed a puppetmaster.  Like I said, I have no problem with you and actually believed your explanation before just based on good faith.  The environment is supposed to be friendly here.  I understand maybe you felt like your toes were stepped on, but there's no call to have such a knee-jerk response, accusing literally everyone who had anything to do with a rather routine investigation of harboring malice. --Cheers, Komdori 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to some edits you made you my talk page, do not make threats. Putting valid tags on your user page to aid investigation is not harassment. --Cheers, Komdori 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock issue
Hi David, Removing the sock puppet template from your user page won't help things; it tends to be seen in a negative light. There may be a policy against it, although I can't find it right now. Also, your recent edits on the Talk:Liancourt Rocks page tend to make things personal. If I may be so bold, allow me to suggest you focus on asking another administrator to help with double-checking the checkuser, so that the sock puppet questions may be clarified. --Reuben 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reuben, thanks I appreciate your taking the time to leave me a message. It's pretty much a lost cause. These individuals have succeeded in smearing and discrediting me. My belief at this point is it's better to just give up. They have no interest in the truth coming out and even if it did will continue to smear and harrass me. I'll leave it alone for now, because I know if I don't they are going to suceed in the next step which is to get rid of me completely, which is likely what they want. Davidpdx 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi David, Leaving it alone for now is not a bad idea - but please don't be discouraged from asking for a second opinion on the checkuser. If something is causing false positives in the checkuser results, that needs to be fixed.  And the people performing the checkuser function don't have any connection to content disputes over Liancourt Rocks. --Reuben 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to file a harassment case on Endroit and Komdori? I'm not very familiar with related Wikipedia processes and policies, so I'd appreciate it if you take the lead. Cydevil38 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I might but I can't do much at this point as I'm busy. Davidpdx 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pleaes inform me when you do. I think we may also have a good case against them for tendentious editing. Cydevil38 02:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

About Parsceboy though, I don't think he was "complicit" by any extent. On the other hand, Endroit, LactoseTI and Komdori tend to flock together targeting same users, cases and topics, and LactoseTI and Komdori have already been accused repeatedly by different users to be sockpuppets, though they claim that they're just close friends. Cydevil38 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm glad things are getting sorted out. You might like to know that at least Komdori and LactoseTl have in fact been accused of sock puppetry, and had a checkuser requested on them. They're not sock puppets either, but they've been through it too. Going through a checkuser is (sadly) not uncommon, and it doesn't mean anyone is out to get you. Unfortunately, this time the checkuser process went a bit wonky, but that seems to be a technical issue. --Reuben 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: Neither Komdori nor LactoseTl was the one who requested this checkuser. --Reuben 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockppuppet Case
No one's happier than I that it was declared unlikely now. I'm sure we won't have any problems if we happen to meet again on pages, and I hope you can let this just be water under the bridge. As for the harsh words, I understand that it can be a bad feeling to have this kind of thing happen, and understand having feeling a bit slighted. I truly hope there are no hard feelings. Checkusers are rarely wrong, but as Reuben pointed out I know firsthand that they certainly can be. I also hope that you don't feel discouraged from contributing in the future based on this. --Cheers, Komdori 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Davidpdx, I see that you have been cleared at RFCU. Please accept my sincerest appologies for believing you to be a sockpuppeteer.  Now that I know you better, I'll try to make sure that it doesn't happen to you again.
 * And I'm sure that the folks over at RFCU will fix their problems too, so that gross errors like that should never happen again (i.e.: "Foreign WHOIS records"). Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is editors like you and me, who make it a better place.  I hope that we can leave this behind us, and I shall look forward to seeing you continue contributing to Wikipedia like you have been before.--Endroit 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11
The change seems reasonable to me. Let me know if there is a problem with it in future.--Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Karitane Shoal
Hi there. I reverted your edit to the above because (a) it's an underwater reef, not an island, and (b) I think it's important to mention DOM in the article to show how idiotic their claims are. --Gene_poole 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * GP, that's fine. Thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Letter Reply About Board Elections
This letter was a response to a nice email I recieved from another Wikipedia user about board elections. I am posting it here to simply let people know why I seldom edit anymore. Please click on the header above if you wish to read this. Davidpdx 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reluctantly decided to vote in the election and support the following candidates:

I voted for: Ausir (Paweł Dembowski), Kate (River Tarnell), Kingboyk (Stephen Kennedy), WarX (Artur Jan Fijałkowski), Yann (Yann Forget), ^demon (Michael "Chad" Horohoe)

Davidpdx 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Victoratiyeh.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Victoratiyeh.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi There!
Hi there!

Are you against the User:Parsecboy?, If so i will join up with you against him User:Jetwave Dave 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that was resolved pretty much. I don't use Wikipedia that much anymore, somewhat because of the conflicts that exsist and somewhat because I've plain lost interest. Davidpdx 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Goldschmidt.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Goldschmidt.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. nadav (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You know who
Hi there. Good to see you back. I've been pretty busy with life outside WP lately myself, so I haven't been paying too much attention - but our mutual friend does seem to have disappeared up his own capacious fundament for the time being - although we did have a recent attempted sockpuppet abuser at Conch Republic who sounded suspiciously like him. --Gene_poole 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

please stop the insults and personal comments
see the Neil Goldschmidt page. Please stop insulting me with phrases like "you have a selective memory." You can discuss the article, but please don't make any personal comments. Personal comments have no place on Wikipedia.71.111.129.39 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you stop insulting me to start with. Davidpdx 11:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never insulted you. I made my edits in good faith. I don't know why you had a problem with me. And now I find out that you recruited people to the Neil Goldschmidt page. People who are friends of yours. Wonderful, just wonderful. I suggest you read the pillars of wikipedia again. I think you've lost sight of a few of them. 71.111.129.39 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris R. Jeppson
Morris Jeppson has 3 great grand kids. One of his daughter married in California, She had daughter. I married her daughter and have 3 kids. Can the fact that he has 3 great grand kids be added to the page> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.156.106 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I for got I can provide and email address for you to contact me if you are interested. Have pictures that will verify this.

Regards R Bochman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.156.106 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a little sensitive I have been called that before for no reason. I hate that term. Is David the right one to ask my question too. Regarding Morris R. Jeppson?

Regards R Bochman216.85.156.106 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * R, yes you can ask me. I believe it's also possible for you to send me a message through Wikipedia to my email address. If you sign up for an account (which should just take a few minutes) it will be easier. I'm hesitant to post my email address because of spam and miscreants out there getting a hold of it. Is your first name Ron? I think I know who you are, but I'm just taking a guess. Davidpdx 02:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls
I think we have an honest-to-goodness troll. Don't feed. That is all. Katr67 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a Troll just never left a message here before. Man you make a mistake and get slammed. what is wrong with you people. Can't ask a simple question. It's like posting on LGF.216.85.156.106 18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never interacted with you before, so I can assure you my message has nothing to do with you. I've worked with David before in another context. Sorry if posting an unrelated message after your posts made it seem it was commentary on those posts. If had intended to do something so rude, I would have made my post a subsection of yours. Thanks. Katr67 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr/Ms 216.85.156.106:  Not to worry my friend,  I'm 90% sure it is I they have labeled a troll.  I tried to edit a page, and  got in some doo-doo with a few wiki users, so I think it's me.   Katr67, can you please verify since I'm not the only one who's confused.    71.111.129.39 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To clear up the apparent misunderstanding, Katr67 was NOT referring to 216.85.156.106, but the situation in regards to editing the Neil Goldschmidt article. I believe 216.85.156.106 is leaving messages in regards to the article about Morris Jeppson. Two different situation here. I hope that clears it up. Davidpdx 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page:) Have a nice day!--SJP 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking about? Cheers!--SJP 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already made a AIV report on him. That is the correct report. All that we can do now is wait until he is blocked. Cheers!--SJP 12:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank Davidpdx
I saw the change to the page on Morris R. Jeppson. I appreciate your cooperation. My oldest, who is eight, is going to take it for share day in 3rd grade. He is extatic about being able to share this bit of history with his class.

Thanks again. R Bochman71.221.103.13 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

re: 3RR on Macedonian
I was going to just go ahead and ban him, but he hasn't actually reverted since the 3RR warning (his last revert was 10:47 UTC, you warned at 10:51 UTC), so I was going to wait around to see if he stopped before doing so. Ten reverts in 24 hours is a bit in excess of 3, but it still seems like it's worth waiting to see if he heeds the warning. --Delirium 11:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonians are gene connected with ancient Macedonins, but most of today greeks are the one that came later on those lands.
Hi there Macedonians are the real macedonians not the greeks here some links for you to see that:



Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11260506&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

So now maybe you will help me to fix the nonrespectfull posts here on wikipedia about the macedonians. not the macedonian slavs like some nationalist say. Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icesarimak (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)   --Icesarimak (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is something that can be really proven, you need to discuss it on the talk page rather then revert. I am not editing very much on Wikipedia and only come on occasionally to edit or do RC patrol. I would encourage you familarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia. Davidpdx (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ole Miss
David. IF you read the citations you will see that they are much more biased than what I have reposted. Allstarecho jsut doesn't want it listed.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't take the time, and like I stated on the talk page I have so little knowledge of college sports (hey at least I admit it right?). I just get distressed by the constant reverting. He (or she) seem to be a very controversial editor from looking at their talk page. My opinion is let him dig his own grave. Davidpdx (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jason Collins
By all means report him. --Beaker342 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll wait to see if he continues. The last edit I have was at 14:18 (my time). If he does it again, he's toast. Davidpdx (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that, because of your recent warring over this article with other parties, the page has consequently been locked from editing for a period of 96 hours. Please take this time to discuss the problem and come to a consensus. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies to infinity for great mis-interpretation, following a kind of misguided RFPP report. There was no warring, of course. My sincerest apologies - the IP is now blocked for vandalism. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of you know who?
Hi David. I wonder if you wouldn't mind looking at the contributions of Onecanadasquarebishopsgate on the talk page of Principality of Sealand. This new editor appeared a little while ago, and as the weeks have passed his comments have become less and less coherent/rational, and more and more troll-like - to the point where they now seem to resemble those of you-know-who, to a rather uncanny degree. Let me know what you think. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I spent a few minutes looking it over. I don't honestly think he has anything to do with Johnski, however I think the person who is editing the article is highly involved in PoS in some way or another. The user does have the same talk in circles mentality though. That's got to be a headache. Davidpdx (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Maybe I am just paranoid when it comes to he-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken-but-begins-with-a-"J". ...although with some things that's not necessarily a bad thing. :-) Have a great xmas and new year. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably later
Hi - I removed the article count as well because we lost about a thousand last month due to problems with the database (something I don't have anything to do with so that was kind of sad to hear that they got lost and not being able to help out) and since it's below 10,000 again I just decided to remove that sentence along with it. I think I'll put the article count back up later on after the controversy with the page dies down. Mithridates (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem
But you need to use or  when you add a citation.--Appletrees (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard work on Lee bio
Sorry for offending you, David. After reflection, I think I was too severe on the first draft.

Also, I forgot that many articles are "works in progress" and can be shown to visitors before being "finished". --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)