User talk:Deltabeignet/Archive01

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 07:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

re: Telecaster
Thanks for good edits! The pictures seem to have vanished, though. Any idea if something happened in the edit process? Auto movil 16:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fender vs. Gibson
Hey, check out this link I stumbled on;. Seems rivalry may have been responsible for the development of the humbucker. Soundguy99 13:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Great stuff. The page is really taking shape. Deltabeignet 20:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is definitely getting there. You've got some interesting stuff in there that I didn't know. Might still be considered kind of too "essay-ish". Some things that might help with that would be, say, more dates and any kind of sales figures you can find. Example: proof of Gibson dominance in hollow bodies; "Fender's HB models like the Starcaster only produced from (date) to (date) and only sold (umpty-thousand) copies, Gibson's got (however many) different models of HB's in continuous production since (whenever) and have sold (umpty-umpty-thousand) copies." Stuff like that. Also, if I were you, I'd reference the bejesus out of it - including any and all paper books that you can find on the subject. Miller Freeman is a big publisher of guitar books and gear history books.

Another thought; artist endorsement (or highly-visible use) would seem to be a big factor in the rivalry, you've already got quite a bit of info there, but anything about people "switching sides", especially at the instigation of one of the manufacturers, would be good.

Fewer adjectives would probably give a more NPOV "tone."

A project like this one is exactly what makes Wikipedia so cool; you're compiling little bits of info from various sources about a real subject that a paper encyclopedia would never care about. The F/G rivalry is something we all "know", but you're actually getting it all together in one place. But that's why I think it's important that you have lots of references, and as many facts and figures as possible; that way it passes the "verifiable" wikipedia test and no-one will yell "original research!" Also, the musical instrument and instrument manufacturer "section" of Wikipedia seems to be pretty sparsely populated, so I'd make it a little more complete before you "release" it, cause I wouldn't expect a lot of people to find it and start adding to it.

As far as a title goes "Rivalry between F & G" or something like that would probably be fine. This is the kind of article that nobody's probably going to find unless they're already at Fender or Gibson. Put a link to the page at the "see also" section of those articles, and categorize the article under Guitar.

Hope this helps, and if I find any other useful stuff, I'll let you know. Soundguy99 11:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Women's history
You changed Women's history to a redirect to Famous women in history. This is not the same thing!!! Women's history has to include the history of the Common Woman. Common Man 22:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any distress I've caused you; I saw a page with apparently no useful content, assumed it was a test, and redirected it to the closest thing in my search results. Sorry again, and feel free to do whatever you want with the page. Deltabeignet 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No harm done. Well, I don't think I'm cut out to fill this with much content. I really hope someone would, though. Common Man 22:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Overdub
Good job with that article, you have definitely improved it by leaps and bounds. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 20:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Morello crime family
I'm sorry to bother you but regarding your recent move of Morello Crime Family shouldn't it be under Morello crime family as per Wikipedia naming convention as well as the Mafia crime families category ? 209.213.71.78 22:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was in the middle of editing and I didn't notice the page had been moved until I saw the history. Thanks again. 209.213.71.78 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Layla
I'd encourage you to nominate this article on WP:FAC. I think it's pretty good right now, but the best way to get solid feedback and improve this article which you have worked so hard on is to enter it on FAC. I'll support the article, and also help in addressing any concerns that come up about the piece. If you want to discuss this with me, feel free, otherwise I hope to see it on FAC soon. Thanks. Harro5 July 5, 2005 07:23 (UTC) Things aren't going too badly. Legitimate issues, and none too major. At least there aren't any dodgy picture licensing problems. Oh well, I'm keeping an eye on the proceedings and helping where I can. Harro5 July 7, 2005 10:42 (UTC)
 * I've changed a bit of the language in the article (minor changes really), and have merged some paragraphs to make the article look longer. Here's a diff. Anyway, let's see how it fares on FAC! Harro5 July 5, 2005 22:44 (UTC)
 * Featured'! Congratulations on a great article and just reward for all your improvements. Harro5 22:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize
Re: My messages on Talk:Hypnotize

Yes, he did vandalize the page (see ). I don't care what he's doing or what he wants me to do, why? Because, I really don't have to deal with anonymous users like him, especially when he refuses to stop vandalizing or removing some information that is right or not before threatening to violate the 3RR (three revert rule). -- Mike Garcia | talk 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

The first of half of the new System of a Down album was supposed to be Hypnotize and the second was supposed to be Mezmerize. In early 2005, they rotated. That's why I kept restoring the information when he kept coming back repeating the word "source?". Again, I don't have to deal with any anonymous like him, especially when he refuses vandalizing anything and removing information before threatening me to violate the 3RR (three revert rule) and telling me to find a source of all that bullshit he kept removing. -- Mike Garcia | talk 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)


 * Mike, you barely make any sense. Please, next time cite your source. 66.36.129.90 6 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

Changing the Irish-American page into something else
You are trying to change the Irish-American page into a Scotch-Irish page. If you leave out the information about Catholics, then you have to remove a lot of the other stuff in the article, information about St. Patrick's Day parade, descrimination, and the communities, because that is all Irish-Catholic related. 64.109.253.204 23:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Requesting comments on template alteration
Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 09:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chindia
Hi, I noticed that the above article was on afd - I've expanded it. Can you have a look and let me know if it is ok? --Gurubrahma 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Chicago (band)
"Wah-Wah butressed" - love it. Proof that NPOV does not require boring language. Jgm 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

MuggleCast / Mugglecast
This was a bit confusing, eh? Sometimes it's good to look around a bit when it looks like the contributor doesn't know what they are doing. It would have been better had the page with no content been redirected to the page with content and then that one AfD-ed. Several people have now expressed opinons that no longer match the facts, e.g. "empty". brenneman (t) (c) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MuggleCast
Would you please revisit the discussion, read my comments and consider changing your vote? You didn't vote explicitly, but since you nominated it the way you did, I assume you wanted it deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

GBU-37 - could use a tie breaker
GBU-37 now has content, though nothing to indicate that it is notable.

The vote is currently 5-3, which I think is borderline. Could I trouble to you to drop by Articles for deletion/GBU-37 and add a line showing if you now think the page deserves to live or not?

Thanks Ben Aveling 19:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Evan Lee Dahl
You added the nn-bio to the page, which I removed since I don't think it warrants it. Among others, he has an imdb page with film and tv credits which I put into the page and made it into a stub. If you still don't think it's notable, please let me know. - Bobet 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree for a VfD for the article. It's not something I've a personal interest in, I just didn't think speedy deletion was clearly warranted in this case (even though the original article didn't state any notability). - Bobet 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate!
The RFC has finished. Basically, I was doing what I do on school articles - dissecting the decent stuff from anon edits from kids wanting to add something - and they took offence when I continually reverted their attempt to create a "students tell all"-type exposé on their school. Anyway, an RFC started after they banded together as a little group and read a little on Wikipedia policy, and they got pretty into it, before getting fed up we (me and Bishonen) assume because they were having to fight too hard. So I've survived, and am continuing my ways as per usual, vindicated by the community if you see how many votes support Bishonen's unbiased summary. I'm sort of stuck on projects at the moment though. Anything you're working on in particular you want a hand with? Our Layla combination worked pretty darned well (it even got a good mention as a benchmark on FAC here), so drop me a line if you need a second opinion. Thanks for the support. Harro5 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope the RFA succeeds this time. You deserve the responsibility, and will do well. Good luck! Harro5 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for panhandling info!
Thanks for your response a few days ago to my Reference desk/Humanities question about the use of funds by panhandlers. I was able to add a paragraph to the Begging article today, including a citation of the article you pointed me to. I appreciate your help. -- Creidieki 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

permutation group
Hi, -- when reverting a suspcious edit, please check the edit history. In this case, you reverted to a version that was incorrect (and in particular, was reverted by te very same person who'd made the change in the first place! linas 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * replied on user's talk page. 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

About the jon durant thing..
Yeah, that wasn't me, it was someone I know. Sorry. Rmpfu89 20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

re:Cquote images
Oh uh, in that case they're both public domain. I'll change the image tags. Thanks for letting me know about those - I didn't know anything about image tags — cua HL   15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! &mdash; Dan | talk 22:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Congrats! And no problem with the support - you'll be a good admin. If you need any help sorting out the new superpowers feel free to drop me a note! Grutness...wha?  23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and you're very welcome. --King of All the Franks 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Block user instead of warn
I saw thet you just warned 207.173.90.1 instead of blocking him. He is a persistent vandal, and has been listed on WP:AIV many a time, and op's have just warned him. Could we ban him for a day or 2? --munboy 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deltabeignet. Merry christmas! --munboy 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice
You managed to get Layla through FAC so maybe you could take a look at this one and tell me if you think it's there or not. (Peer Review has been unhelpful in this regard, just one guy pointing me at Hugo Chavez for how to do a footnote style so complex it requires a phD. Besides I wrote this alone. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 04:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Slide Mountain Wilderness Area
I was in the process of writing text for the article when you redirected. Please give editors time to finish these things (I've been rapped at AfD for this myself). Daniel Case 19:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know about inuse. I'll have to try it next time. Daniel Case 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

About your blocks...
Just a friendly word... When you block editors, please be sure to check the block log before blocking. You've made at least 2 conflicting blocks recently, where a user is already blocked and then you re-block for a different time. I don't know if you know how the blocking system works, but shorter blocks always override longer ones regardless of which one was placed first. For instance, there was a user who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism, and because you blocked him also (but for 24 hours), the shorter block overrid the longer one. Just a friendly note, I don't want it to seem like I'm telling you off! Best wishes,  Fir  e  Fox   20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin
Good start so far, but a quick tip: whenever you speedy delete something, always cite the applicable criteria (eg. "CSD A6" for an attack page). Means its easier for other admins if there are re-creates, deletion review, whining anons, etc. Keep up the good work. Harro5 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to block IP address 24.97.21.26
Hey, it looks like the same vandal that was desecrating the Joseph Smith featured article under User talk:195.175.37.9. I noticed you just blocked him, could you block this address as well. He just won't give up. Thanks. Hathawayc 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we ban this guy?
This guy (Special:Contributions/24.232.229.109) keeps adding his own personal spam ad links to the logo/branding pages, even after they've been reverted back. I don't know how to recommend a ban. You seem to be an administrator, so I thought I'd ask. Jkatzen 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page! Happy hunting, --bbatsell | &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Reversions
Hello Delta,

If you read the discussions you'll see that I *did* discuss it first. Hope this helps. My goals is to make a better wikipedia.

Pedro Zamora
The Judd Winick related categories (bottom of page) are a probably a cut-and-paste typo on someone's part, he has his own article at Judd Winick where he's categorized (and the same anon IP has edited that article as well). -- Curps 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

AMA
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pete Townshend
Sorry to bother you but could you please put a "WP:RFC/SOC" on the Townshend article? Cheers in advance. 81.178.224.140 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is protected; I cannot edit it to put the shortcut thinhumajog on the article.81.178.224.140 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your suggested compromise. It's on my talk page. Thanks. Davidpatrick 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - pending some resolution of the issue I feel I should refrain from responding to each new post on the Townshend Talk page - from the person who is taking an opposing position as these exchanges seem to have become counter-productive. We are both reiterating our positions without convincing the other. And I do not wish to respond to ad hominem statements. On the other hand - I don't wish my silence to be mis-construed as acceptance of those statements. Shall I refrain for a while? Davidpatrick 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Spotted your compromise on the Townshend Talk page now. I hadn't seen it at the foot of the page. As another person has already responded to it - I shall add my own response - an adapt from my response to you on my own talk page. Davidpatrick 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - just to update you on the Pete Townshend matter.

There has been some help from another wikipedian who responded to your suggestion. He got involved in some exchanges on the Townshend talk page with the other person. He agreed that it might be a good idea for me to try and not respond to each and every counter-argument. So I've laid off.

The "protection" that had been placed on the Townshend article was just removed - and of course he has been tagged as a Sex Offender again. I had thought that there might be a moratorium for a while - but...

The helpful person who tried to intervene is Keithlaw Klaw

You can see his attempts to resolve the matter on the Townshend talk page - though it seems his efforts were not fully appreciated by the other person. I have dropped him a note mentioning the latest reversion. Thanks. Davidpatrick 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for resolving the de minimis dispute! - Jersyko   talk  22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * . . . Or trying to, anyway. The other user has commented again on the talk page of the article.  He continues to make uncivil comments directed at me.  He seems to have combed my talk page and user page for information to cite in his comments, though this has led him to some humorously incorrect assumptions about my religion and feelings toward the inclusion of bawdy content of Wikipedia.  As this has happened multiple times now, however, I would appreciate hearing your comments about this, and what action, if any, you think is appropriate. -  Jersyko   talk  04:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A Bit Rough?
Dear D. I think that putting out an alert on me is a bit rough. If you were to take a moment to look through my modest contributions you would see that I have never got involved with anything quite like this before. Where I went over the top in a comment I did withdraw the remark by re-editing. In any event my colourful antipodean phraseology is significantly less strong than some of the other things that appear on his talk page.

I have reread my comments on the De Minimis page with particular reference to the ones made in the last 24 or so hours and I feel that I have not personalised them against Jersyko. If there is anything that you feel I should reconsider I am happy to do so.

I can't see how my comment on his talk page which was intended to convey that the matter was at an end can be interpreted as harrassment.

I would also ask you note that a strict interpretation of the "uncivil" rule might be applied to Jerskyo's comments on my reading abilities.

I would draw your attention to the fact that he has been involved in several ongoing "hot" disputes whereas I have not. Likewise you should note that the only edits to the page material to the limerick issue and the most material comments in the discussion page (apart from yours) have been made by Jersyko and his friend and that this is a pattern that has appeared elsewhere.

Albatross2147 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear D. again, you don't have to apologise for Jersyko's comments - I wasn't worried about them as I should have made clearer.

If I promise faithfully to never ever enter into discussions with undergraduates or anyone without a huge sense of humour can I be sprung from my present purgatory?

Albatross2147 04:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Broadmindedtwentysomething
Thanks for the reverts and block - the guy was really starting to become a major pain! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute- Baltimore
I'm interested in finding a mediator for a dispute I'm having on the article about Baltimore, MD. I cleaned up the sub-article on climate, and added a chart with average temperatures and precipitation.

For about 2 weeks now, someone has been re-editing my information every single day and putting in different temperatures. The statistics I am using for the Baltimore climate article are taken from the National Weather Service's website, where I did a search for Baltimore and got the weather information taken from the downtown area.

The user who keeps changing my article is using information from the NWS that was taken at the Baltimore-Washington Airpot, which is not in the city limits of Baltimore and is in fact in a completely different county, closer to Washington DC. He keeps saying that the inner harbor weather station is small, unimportant, etc., and that the BWI information more closely represents Baltimore. I think the averages taken IN THE CITY of Baltimore are more appropriate for an article on the CITY OF BALTIMORE.

Any ideas for help???? I need a third party to interject on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munch10 (talk • contribs)

New AMA poll
Please have a look at the proposed election parameters under the section entitled An election proposal... and cast a ballot. Wally 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection
Hi there, I noticed you unprotected Pete Townsend but did not update the list of [|protected pages]. Would you kindly do so in the future. novacatz 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Albatross trouble
I really hate to bring this up again, but it seems User:Albatross2147 is on the attack against me again. He's now engaged another user, who posted a vanity article that has been Afd'd in the past and delted 6 times in total and is mad at me for marking it for speedy, in his campaign against me. Based on this comment and all his prior comments directed at me, I think some action needs to be taken in regards to Albatross. I'm tired of this. - Jersyko   talk  15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian Does Hollywood
Why did you "rm speculation" on 42? See these references.. many entries there are also speculation, you want to remove all those as well? --midkay 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox Mulder from The X-Files lives in apartment number 42. In the popular video game Destroy All Humans!, there is a base spoofing the infamous Area 51, called "Area 42". The popular talker the Planes of Existence used 42 as the beginning of all of its ports. Why weren't these removed? None are proven. In your opinion, the referencer needs to confirm that it's a reference before it can be officially considered a reference? For most people, I imagine, that almost defeats the purpose of a reference. And what about in-jokes? --midkay 01:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I asked a few questions I hope I can get answers to - my view on this is that nothing should have been removed in the first place; I'm completely uninterested in removing more. I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to remove all speculation, and why speculation but not other indirect speculation such as in-jokes or tidbits, neither of which you can prove. So, can you give me some answers? You haven't answered any questions from either of my previous messages yet. Thanks. --midkay 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election
Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV removal
User:Mr_Phil is only blocked for one day for 3RR. My point against him is that he is a consistent, dangerous vandal with fluid IPs; please allow me to re-add him to the list. Infinity0 talk 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User Infinity0 has called me a "fucking phoney", the quote can be found here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_5


 * Quote:
 * "The word "testosterone" does not even appear in that source, you fucking phoney. Infinity0 talk 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * Other quotes from that discussion:
 * "Mr Phil, you seem to have nothing constructive to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop wasting people's time. You're pathetic. Infinity0 talk 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * "We do NOT give readers complete bullshit. Infinity0 talk 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * He also claims I am conflating myself with a friend of mine here on WP.


 * In addition he is leading a campaign of hatred against me on WP, spreading all kinds of malicious slander around, just because he lost an argument. Now he is trying to track me down personally using my IP address, the discussion can be seen on his userpage, I ask you to reprimand him.


 * --Mr Phil 08:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and a watch
those porno pages and the matching AfD pages, because the user has a tendency to remove them and overwrite them and I already had my 3 reverts on the production company so I can't revert it anymore. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Superstrat POV?
Hi! You've removed whole "advantages" column from superstrat article. I disagree with this decision. While "advantages" caption by itself may be somewhat POV-like, but contents of the column are really more or less non-subjective facts. Let's see one-by-one:


 * "More appealing to rock and metal artists" - it's a fact that most metal/rock guitarists prefer more "aggressive" guitar looks. There *are* some musicians who play unmodified Fender Stratocasters on metal scene, but it's pretty uncommon. I can hardly name ten of them.


 * "Full two octaves" - it's a fact that more frets gives wider tonal range.


 * "Better sustain" - it's a well-known fact that set-in and neck-thru-body constuction gives better sustain. Sure, it's another question if this sustain is really needed and what price would be paid for it, but sustain itself is absolutely neutral POV.


 * "Better top fret access" - kind of arguable, but it won't make top fret access worse - that's for sure - and we're citing possible advantages and want to list typical trends that mark superstrats.


 * "Greater tuning stability" - properly tuned Floyd Rose bridge gives up better tuning stability than equally well-tuned vintage tremolo bridge - that's also a well-recognized fact. Sure, that's another question of price and other usability issues, FR is much more expensive and harder to use.


 * "Comfortable playing of shredding leads" - arguable too, but this is usually cited by most of players and that's the main purpose of this modification.


 * "Fatter and less humming sound, more applicable for hi-gain amplification used in rock and metal" - humbuckers really give you less hum and fatter sound that is better for hi-gain amps - that's a fact. Singles sound thinner and less pronounced for rock/metal music.

I'd vote for returning of "advantages" column, may be in somewhat new fashion. We can name them something like "cited advantages" or "target objectives" or "reached goals" or something like that, and, if you want to, we can create "disadvantages" or something like that column that would equally list cons (that is, price, servicability, usability, etc) for these facts. --GreyCat 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work at fixing this issue! I've took a look, fixed some moments and added some more explanations to the table. --GreyCat 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Love Devotion Surrender
Your "wikification" consisted of a host of edits such as changing: etc. Why? What happened? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * album to album
 * CBS to CBS
 * Carlos Santana & Buddy Miles Live!) to Carlos Santana & Buddy Miles Live! (Album))
 * correct capitalisation to incorrect

Ethics of Care
Hi,

I'm a little confused as to why you deleted the Ethics of Care article. I believe that it could definitely be expanded to be a useful article; I was in the process of formatting it and putting a stub tag on it when you deleted it. I think that the article did provide some context, and future editors could have provided more. Could you explain your reasoning to me a little more? I'd like to reinstate it if you don't mind, but I don't want to get into an edit/revert war here.

Thanks, Hbackman 03:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

...well, looks like someone else already did reinstate it. *shrugs* Hbackman 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't actually "my" article; I'd come across it doing RC patrol and paused to clean it up. I can't recall who initially created it. But thanks for the reply. :) Hbackman 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism
Could you semi-protect the page and Tape editing and block the following accounts for block evasion:


 * 194.109.22.147 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])

I came to you because you blocked the above users's other IP address. M o e  ε  22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another block evasion: 194.109.22.148 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) . M o e   ε  22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AS11
Hello. I noticed you just deleted AS11. This was an article which was redlinked on List of noise musicians, which I am trying to tidy up by fixing the redlinks. The artist in question has released 3 CDs on notable independent label Antifront. Would it be possible to restore it, or at least send it to AfD, rather than Speedy it. Thanks. Cnwb 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I just restored it, which I could have just done anyway, but I figured I owed you the courtesy of asking you. I understand the Speedy, as I myself often go on Newpages Speedy binges. Cnwb 05:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley & Content
Hi,

Apologies for deleting materials on the Presley page but I believe I have supported the reasons behind the deletion. User Onefortyone has what appears to be a single-minded agenda to paint Presley as gay. Given the vast amount of information about Presley this seems very unlikely. Moreover, his sources are very poor. I just don't think an Encyclopedia should contain such wild conjecture. Thanks!

Lochdale

I've noticed this too. Onefortyone also seems to be taking the quotes of his sources out of context in order to suit his agenda. He's already on probation regarding his edits to the elvis article, so i hope something is done before he gets too carried away again.--Count Chocula 08:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect of free running
Hi. I notice you've redirect free running to running. I think a better redirect for the article would be Parkour which is the sport/activity to which the term 'free running' is generally applied by English speakers. I trust you have no objections to me changing the redirect (and the associated one from Freerunning. Kcordina 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Could you help me out here please? Could you expand on what you found confusing about the Combatant Status Review Tribunal article? -- Geo Swan 06:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(untitled)
Re: Lida Baarova. Thank you. David Cruise 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Domestic Terrorism and Irish Americans
Please review my latest edit and rv if Demiurge (who is Irish Catholic and determined to vet anything that he does not personally like) has rv my latest edition back. This is censorship, and I need allies if I am to counter it. There is nothing non factual or non-sourced about my info. Rms125a@hotmail.com 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re the following
I reverted all edits made since Demiurge's version. While I appreciate the work by 24.136.99.194, I believe most of the issues regarding cleanup weren't present before Rms125a@hotmail.com's last reversion, veiled as a minor edit. Because of this, I didn't re-add the tag, though a might not be unwarranted. Deltabeignet 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what you are saying here. Pls. clarify. 64.105.74.7 01:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde
You semiprotected an article that was apparently being vandalized (overtly anyway) about once a day, if that. How, in any even borderline way, does that square with official policy? (My emphasis):


 * Note to Administrators: semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. In the case of one or two static IP vandals hitting a page, blocking the vandal or vandals is a much better option than semi protection as semi protection causes more collateral damage. Please remember to lift the semi-protection quickly.

Please take specific note of When not to use semi-protection, which states:


 * Semi-protection:
 * Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism.

The activity on the page wasn't even run-of-the mill vandalism. Wikipedia admins are out of control. They often pooh pooh and block others for the slightest contravention of Wikipedia policy; yet look at what you do with impunity. Your actions in this regard are indefensible, as is the semi-protection of the talk page, where vandalism continues despite the feeble blockade. Please justify your action in light of official Wikipedia policy on semi-protection. 216.8.14.6 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's it? So unprotect it then. Or are you another of the many in the Katefan clique? You admins are insane -- totally screwing up Wikipedia with your selective noses. Why are you adding the tag instead of unprotecting it, when it was obviously not protected according to Wikipedia policy? 216.8.14.229 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for blocking the user that was vandalizing my userpage.CharlesM 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rewith06.jpg
I have marked this is as unlicensed after reviewing the fair use criteria, for the requirement that "material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" as most WireImage/AP/Reuters/etc. images are.Fallout boy 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit inquiry.
Good day,

The content submitted on the the talk page for the Brian L. French stub was included for review as a courtesy, and would have been incorporated within a week. Could you please explain why you elected short-circuit the review process? Folajimi 11:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No harm done. Thanks for the timely reply. Cheers. Folajimi 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"There are no wrong notes."
I thought this was a quote from Dave Holland (who was in Miles' band), not Miles himself. Is there a source for it anywhere? (Just curious.)  &middot; rodii &middot;  20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocate request: egregious WP:V and NPOV violations in University of California, Riverside

 * Hello. If it is at all possible, I would very much appreciate advice on how to settle an edit war with user UCRGrad who I strongly believe is POV pushing by several methods:


 * 1) Citing explicitly unreliable sources (blogs/forums), and maintaining that they are valid sources.
 * 2) Citing another Wikipedia article, which itself is afoul of the verifiability policy, also maintaining that it is a valid source.
 * 3) Cherry-picking the most negative data out of reliable sources, and refusing to accept other data out of the VERY SAME sources (in fact on the SAME PAGE), violating WP:NPOV and accusing others of sugar-coating bias. Dismisses data from reliable sources with nothing more than his own judgement.
 * 4) Interprets data and attributes cause/effect, when nothing in cited reputable sources (sometimes there are none!) suggests anything, violating original research ban
 * 5) Interprets data contrary to conclusions and overall picture painted by cited reputable source, violating original research ban and general intellectual honesty.
 * 6) Chooses wording specifically designed to promote a POV, sometimes contrary to cited reputable source, violating style.


 * I can go on-and-on, but I believe the best thing to do is to simply read the disputed article. Even without careful scanning of points in discussion and editing history, I believe the POV pushing and violation of neutrality is incredibly obvious,


 * There have been quite a few difficulties. The user is a prolific editor, and editing history shows a long-term dedication to maintaining the article in its current bias.  The username also suggests that this user/username is specifically dedicated to this article in order to add weight to his POV.  In the initial stages of the argument, this user refused to cite disputed passages, claiming "commonplace knowledge".  I sought a Third Opinion, and sure enough, he sided with my insistence for citation.  But the citations produced were unreliable under Wikipedia standards (user-contributed pages with no editorial oversight, AKA blog/forum).  Sure enough, the user disputes this with no debate, even going as far as to equate editor-produced university summaries of a positive nature (which he objects to and dismisses, hypocritically) from a reliable source Princeton Review as being on par.  Seemingly in response to the point both me and the Third Opinion made about verifiability, this user is currently using citable sources to abuse neutrality to an extreme degree.  One particularly egregious example is that he has posted a photo of a dirt lot  in the process of building contruction with his caption of "Representative photo of the UC Riverside campus and several buildings in the background. " The photo is citeable, but together with the caption it COMPLETELY misrepresents the campus.  This user also seems to exhibit very little intellectual honesty, and debating with him/her is arduous, like the proverbial catching of a greased pig.  Even exhaustive arguments are dismissed and/or ignored.


 * As for my involvement, I was a user and proponent of Wikipedia in my immediate life, but did not feel the need to get involved. I did not become a Wikipedian until I came across this article, the bias of which made me nothing short of irate.  I do know this institution, as I've had dealings with it and friends who have attended it.  (IMO, it is just another college.  Not spectacular but not bad.)


 * FYI, I have violated some of Wikipedia's policies in the course of dealing with this user. They are of the behavioural variety, assuming bad faith by making accusations (IMO, it is justified considering the blatant bias and editing history), and personal attacks mostly in the form of sarcasm.  Again, I was/still am irate.  But I assure you that I have made all attempts to conform to Wikipedia's principles and apply strict intellectual rigour.  My particular belief that my opponent tries hard to skirt intellectual rigour makes me just that much more irritated.


 * Your advice would be very much appreciated.
 * --DtEW 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Deltabeignet, thank you for choosing to involve yourself in this issue. UCRGrad's extensive citations are recent, as I made a big stink about the prior lack of verifiability and reliable sources, especially in passages in which conclusions were drawn.  He then went on to argue that they were "obvious" conclusions.  Both me and the Third Opinion (Scott Wilson) went on to tell him that such was original research (and hence banned).  For quite a while he maintained that it wasn't "research,"  and edit-reverted with no regard to our objections.


 * Yesterday, it came to me that I should check his sources. I was looking at the article and looking for unverified interpretations and bypassing cited passages, assuming they were correct.  I realized that I gave him/her too much credit for honesty.  Other people didn't challenge the reliable portion of his sources for possibly that and the fact that one major source (US News & World Report: Colleges 2006) was a pay site, while others required registration (Princeton Review, Press-Enterprise).  It was probably easier to assume that he was being honest.  I decided to bite the bullet in terms of both money and time and see what was exactly said.  I found that in just about all his citations, severe misrepresentation and/or cherry-picking to produce undue weight, was occuring.  I made my arguments in the discussion, and then rewrote the "Academics" section (which was what I was focusing on just to limit the scope of the battle to a manageable level) with some ommitted facts cited from the very same page he cited.  My extensively cited rewrite is here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=46317920&oldid=46317591


 * ...which was then promptly reverted, with him/her accusing ME of introducing bias!


 * The new citations about the band is also dishonest. If you read the source, it was an opinion column  talking about the band being banned because the school reduced the size of the band and added electric instruments (amplified) to make it a "little rock band".  NCAA bans amplified instruments at tournaments.  It has nothing to do with bagpipes.


 * The cherry on top of the sundae of intellectual dishonesty is his deletion of the Long NPOV disclaimer (AKA NPOV in dispute disclaimer) I added. I mean, this just notes that things are in dispute.  This person has absolutely zero integrity.


 * You suggested filing for a Request for Comments. Do you have any suggestions for what issues I should have people look at?  My only concern is that the most egregious problem (IMO), that of introducing bias by misrepresenting reliable sources (and ones that aren't completely convenient to check), will be missed, or difficult to represent for the amount of attention relatively uninvolved people are willing to devote.  Do you have any suggestions on that?  Thanks for any insight you can give.
 * --DtEW 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not having continued the discussion of the UCR article for the last few days, when everyone else is "fighting the good fight," so-to-speak. I've been pretty busy these few days, so I feel the need to apologize for seeming to abandon the issue into in your hands.  The entire issue with the Request for Comments has me stymied, believe-it-or-not.  I'm at a loss at which category this fits in.  Is it User Conduct?  Or is it issue-based?  If so, is it Society, Law, and Sex?  At this point, I'm tempted to call in your offer for doing the RfC for me... would that be too much trouble for you?  At this point I think the most obvious problem is NPOV.
 * --DtEW 08:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying the RfC topic category. I have submitted a short RfC there concerning the appropriateness of the NPOV Dispute tag, and also invited comments on NPOV violations, if any.  Hopefully outside comments/perspectives will be forthcoming.  Upon returning to the UCR page, I see that other people are also voicing that UCRGrad is there to maintain bias irrespective of discussion.  I'm considering submitting a User Conduct RfC against UCRGrad.  Do you think that this is appropriate?  If so, the RfC against another user requires a two-person threshhold.  Would you be willing to be the second signer?
 * --DtEW 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD
Re: 03-3. I created a series of these to fix some problems with date formating that were caused with some date fields that parse the 29 variable for days of 1 digit. I've fixed several of them, but it requires using additional metatemplates. Please consider restoring this redirect, and delisting from CSD. — xaosflux  Talk  03:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see example I placed on the nominators talk page: User_talk:Arthur_Rubin. — xaosflux  Talk  04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've redeleted these, as they have been obsoleted by the variable. If I've mised any, feel free to relist on CSD, Thanks! —  xaosflux  Talk  02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request on Crossposting
The cleanup notice states: "Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message.". Yet you didn't even look at the talk page.

Welcome to the present. The times when Cleanup was the only conceivable place for details of cleanup requests are gone. Indeed, the request started off there but then mysteriously vanished, and I since restored and expanded upon the lost information on the talk page. -- Smjg 12:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are things I get tired of on Wikipedia, and I admit that sometimes this tiredness manifests in my edit summaries. But I always intend to assume good faith when appropriate.  Sorry I slipped up on this occasion. -- Smjg 10:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You've blocked this guy before...
207.171.180.101 --Please do it again...permanently... for a personal attack on my Talk page. thank you--Avidor 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is referring to comments you previously made a personal attack?

Why delete Birdmonster?
Hi Deltabeignet,

Can you please explain why you deleted the new page, Birdmonster? Thanks. Hotlorp 22:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and pointer to the criteria for speedy deletion. However, several pages that I've started on Wikipedia have not been great in their very first version. But I think they have been coherent, accurate, and useful, perhaps serving as encoruagement for more contributors to add to them. How are you to know how I was going to develop that article in the following few hours? My personal policy on when to press Save is not whether I have asserted enough importance or significance yet. You seem to be saying that, these days, it must be. Basically, I think 5 or 10 mins is too speedy a deletion of my article! Hotlorp 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ADITL waveform replaced
Hi, I've replaced the image depicting "A Day in the Life" in Audacity, uploaded by you, with a more efficient PNG version (Image:ADITL in audacity.png). I isd'd the original one – hope this is OK. Just wanted to let you know. –Mysid 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fresheneez"
Someone has left some angry insults on my talk page.Avidor talk 13:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Avidor felt compelled to tell you that. I may have been angry at Avidor at the time, but I did not insult him. Well unless you consider "I'm disappointed that you're such an unkind person" an insult... Fresheneesz 10:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Telecaster Picture?
Hello fellow guitarist!

I was wondering whether a more appropriate Telecaster picture might make more sense in this entry. The one listed is a very modern model. Most tele enthusiasts would consider a 1952 black guard the quintessential tele model.

Something more like this: http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0100202850 (it's the reissue of the original)

I'm a noobie here so I'd prefer not to change other's content first without asking.

Thoughts?

Lance (lholland) (an ex-moderator at www.telecaster.com aka www.tdpri.com)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lholland (talk • contribs).

Kilt article cleanup tag
I have replaced the cleanup tag on the kilt article which you had removed earlier this month. Please do not remove clanup tags until the issue has been properly resolved. Several people have raised the same issue. I am only the latest. Read the discussion page and you will find out what the issue is and why there has been a problem getting it fixed. JFPerry 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for changing the pictures and for the nice welcome to the site.

BTW - here's the link to the Telecaster site where we had a brief discussion about the entry:

http://www.tdpri.com/viewtopic.php?t=51275

Lholland 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)ljholland

RfC Woggly / Harassment / Request Unblock
I am seeking a RfC from User:Woggly but have been told that it has not been filed. Could you kindly assist me in filing this RfC and defending me / being free of her and her friends' open, destructive harassment which now includes my first block! As a professional international journalist of 25 years I have never been censored in any forum (except for Syria and Iran), till now :< Thank you. IsraelBeach 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Israelbeach block
I saw your message on his talk page. I forgot to actually apply the block. It is in effect now. Sorry for causing confusion. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Is there anyway that the entry on Elvis Presley can either be locked or otherwise monitored? One specific user (Onefortyone) has made a concerted effort to portray Presley as being a homosexual. These efforts included questionable sources as well as willfully misinterpreting existing secondary sources. He has moved on from alleging that Presley was gay to now alleging that Presley had incestous relations with his own mother. To this end, he quotes Peter Guralnik entirely out of context while using select quotes from Albert Goldman (a man who did not know Presley and who has a reputation as being a muckracker) to create a strawman suggesting Presley and his mother where having incestous relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lochdale (talk • contribs) 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User Lochdale should have mentioned that the claims that Elvis had incestous relations with his mother come from Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and are discussed by Elvis expert Greil Marcus in his book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000). Professor David Wall has also written on the topic, accusing the world-wide Elvis industry of suppressing critical voices. To my mind, Lochdale, presumably an enthusiastic Elvis fan, also endeavors to suppress critical voices by removing such passages from the Wikipedia article he doesn't like. Certainly the fans hate Albert Goldman, as the author, in his books on Elvis, repeatedly belittled the late singer over his weight problems, his diet, his choice of performing costumes, and his sexual appetites and peculiarities, etc. However, Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post called Goldman's Elvis a "nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose, but the view of Presley that it expressed dovetailed in many instances with my own, and in spite of itself I found things in it to admire." A Wikipedia article is not a fan site. Therefore, I don't think that critical sections should be deleted. See also my statement concerning the Controversy section you have removed: . Perhaps you can help to rewrite this paragraph. Onefortyone 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments
Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvis and the Beatles
Just for your information, as you are interested in the topic. According to the contemporaneous memo by Egil "Bud" Krogh, deputy counsel to the President, Nixon had a conversation with Elvis about the matter. On page 420 of his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Peter Guralnick writes,
 * The Beatles, Elvis said, as if he were tentatively trying out a new tack, had been a focal point for anti-Americanism. They had come to this country, made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling. "The President," Krogh's memo continued, "nodded in agreement and expressed some surprise." ... Presley indicated to the President in a very emotional manner that he was "on your side." Presley kept repeating that he wanted to be helpful, that he wanted to restore some respect for the flag, which was being lost.

The singer "also mentioned that he is studying Communist brainwashing..." On page 426, Guralnick adds,
 * Presley indicated that he is of the opinion that the Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960's. He advised that the Smothers Brothers, Jane Fonda, and other persons in the entertainment industry of their ilk have a lot to answer for in the hereafter for the way they have poisoned young minds by disparaging the United States in their public statements and unsavory activities. Onefortyone 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ArchINFORM
Please do not revert me without good reason. I never make "biased and/or useless context" edits. Thank you. Giano | talk 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alpha Xi Omega
Hi, I'm just here to inform you that I closed out this AfD for you. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nabassu
Hi! Can i know why do you delete the page about Nabassu and redirected it to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons)? I mean, I don't understand why you've deleted this page, while similar page about D&D demons like Balor (Dungeons & Dragons), Marilith (Dungeons & Dragons) or Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons), just to cite a pair, still exist, and rightly in my opinion. I think that, at least for a completeness principle, it is a mistake delete that page. I hope I could re-write the page about the Nabassu. Thx! Bye! --Eldar Featel 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree on this one; articles on the most well-known demon types have been split off from the D&D demons page for a particular purpose. You left an edit summary of "redirected" without explaining on the talk page of either the redirecting page or the page that was redirected to why you did so, nor did you talk to the page's creator. That's troubling, especially since you did so not less than six minutes after the article was created. Eldar Featel provided a source for the article, wikified and categorized it, and did everything short of leaving an edit summary. The article isn't original research, and doesn't violate NPOV, and he brings up a good point - community consensus has identified major demon types in D&D as being notable. I'm going to revert the redirect for right now, and ask you to explain yourself more fully in the future. Thanks. Captainktainer * Talk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CSA Location Map
Could you add Indian Territory and the CSA Arizona Territory to the map? They were both under CSA control for at least the first year of the war. Nicholas F 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit
Good job on The Shawshank Redemption POV removal. Keep it up. OverMyHead 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am less sure of your removal of all the "differences." I know they're true (though they are unsourced and I agree with that), so how would I cite them? OverMyHead 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I look forward to editing with you again soon. OverMyHead 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your half-blanking of the article on "hate mail"
I can't believe you half-blanked the Hate mail article. I find it an outrageous and intolerable misconduct for an administrator to vandalize Wikipedia himself. 213.37.6.65 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user talk page. Deltabeignet 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not find the text you removed to be "speculative" in the least (at least, not anymore than the few lines you left), and you did not give any good reason to justify your radical action. Radical changes to the article (such as deleting most of its current text) should first be discussed in the talk page, otherwise they fit the definition of vandalism ("Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism"). So do not call me incivil for calling your action vandalism, because it does fit that definition ("removing a significant part of a page &mdash;more than half of it&mdash; without first gaining consensus"). If you find the current wording to be "pablum", then put a "clean-up" tag, or move the unreferenced parts to the talk page requesting others for references/comments; just do not arbitrarily and unilaterally take away half of the contributions of others without consensus. 213.37.6.65 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I told you what Wikipedia guidelines say is the right procedure to introduce radical changes to an article: first discuss them in the talk page and reach a consensus. But you have preferred to ignore it and go on with your unilateral decision to half-blank the page, so you have made it clear that your edit is not in good faith as you claimed. By refusing to abide by the correct procedure even though you have been made aware that not doing so fits the definition of blanking, you have now consciously vandalized the page, and if you continue to do so I will report your behavior to the administrators' board. 213.37.6.65 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharon Bush
Hey Delta, I had a slight concern I wanted to bring up. I don't want to make a huge deal out of it, but I always hope that if someone has a concern about something I do they will discuss it with me, so I wanted to show you the same courtesy. I noticed that you deleted Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush as nn. Now it was a lot of things, including a huge mess, an NPOV nightmare, and a big COI problem, but I thought it did make several assertions of notability that made it not qualify under A7. For example: She has worked as a news anchor, field reporter and producer for CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX affiliates. ...the nation’s first ethnic weather anchor... As the Communications Director for the Memphis Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, Bush initiated and implemented an award-winning media solicitation and placement campaign and executive-produced the first televised National Blues Music Awards. For more than ten years, her voice was regularly heard on “Soul Train,” a nationally-syndicated dance show. She worked alongside former President Jimmy Carter in establishing the Carolinas’ first Habitat for Humanity initiative. And more. Some of these may be kind of weak on their own but IMO together they make the article not qualify under A7. Anyway, sorry to be a pain, hope you take this in the spirit it's intended, of constructive discussion. I'm certainly willing to carry on the discussion, drop me a note. Peace, delldot   talk  06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Helen Keller! The Musical - trivia section
Please do not delete the trivia section of Helen Keller! The Musical. Assuming good faith, if there is something in the section which you disagree with or feel should be written differently, I invite you to rewrite it as you see fit. But wholesale blanking benefits no one. Thank you. Captain Infinity 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

framing merger proposal
Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Vandalism
Hi there. I've reverted vandalism to your userpage by =D --GavinTing 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Military brat
I am in complete disagreement over your arbitrary moving of the page. Did you read any of the discussion that has been going on on the Military brat (U.S. subculture) talk page or the history of why this page was made as a U.S. subculture page?Balloonman 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your move. Please do not arbitrarily move featured articles without discussion or consensus. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

jumpin' jack flash
you cut out some very good information, particularly the story from the four flicks dvd. are you planning on re-writing it with documented facts or should i do that? Stan weller 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Emo (slang) edit
I don't know if you've been watching the article between your most recent edit today and the next most recent (a year ago), but the unreferenced point you deleted was properly sourced for quite some time, up until recently. The ref tag was misplaced by some editor, and that's why someone later tagged it as unreferenced. A direct quote marked unreferenced needs attribution, not deletion (unless absolutely unattributable). I'm not coming down on you or anything, I'm sure you were editing in good faith, but I just wanted to give you a heads up and an explanation. --Cheeser1 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)