User talk:Edward321/Archive 2

Mctrain
So I see. He's also !voted delete at Articles for deletion/Grace Talarico di Capace‎ both as an IP and with the newly created account User:Cancanit. I don't really think there's much the admins can do about problem users with dynamic IPs, though. They might extend the block on the main account, I suppose, but that won't stop him, as you've noticed. Deor (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish he'd keep his promise and leave. Corvus cornix talk  03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

good one
I gave up listing all the usernames at the ANI thread, because he churns out usernames faster then I can list them. :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Remember
Hi, Can you not comment on my "Remember" section of my talkpage, as they are reminders for me. If you want to comment on them Post a new message as ==Another section==, or place a ===#=== section in my "Remember" section. Thank you, 123Pie|Talk''' ]] 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thorp Academy
All other school are 'Cluster Magnets"- which means it is a magnet school bound by a territorial/ neighborhood designation. Only Thorp Scholastic Academy (elementary) and Lane Tech Prep (high School) are magnet schools that cross over any boundaries for the whole Chicago region. Lane already has a proper article and Thorp warrents one too without flagging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.132 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gypsy
Please don't revert the information on Gypsy. There is a major production going on right now on Broadway, the fourth revival, with Patti LuPone. See Gypsy (musical). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on saving the Louis Bozon article from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also for the Dario Poggi article. Chris (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Phillips Exeter Academy
See my note at Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy. – Zedla (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Collegiate secret societies in North America
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Huntingtree Primary School
I declined the the speedy deletion request you placed on this article because schools are very specifically excluded from the A7 deletion criteria. Kind regards, nancy  (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your user page
I think your user page may have been vandalised months ago. Are you intentionally leaving it like that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Muda
Could you explain why you reverted my changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.190.214 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello,

I'm sorry if I came across as ignorant on the AfD:Soviet Famine page. However, this is an issue which is very difficult to talk about for many people, and I guess I am one of those people.

If you have a chance, please join the discussion here [].

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chevron Cars Ltd
Thanks for the reply. Kelvin Jones Motorsport is authorised by Chevron Cars Ltd to build and prepare their cars. Check out both www.kelvinjones-motorsport.com and www.chevronracingcars.com. I will replace the link as I feel it is fully justified. (Manlydesign (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Loretta Spencer
re: your added tag in Loretta Spencer - I was in the middle of posting a major rewrite (and now I know who was the %^%$(^*% who caused the edit conflict :-) ) - please take a look (also Talk) and see if it ain't better. Audemus Defendere (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum
[]

[] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Variant texts in Scientology doctrine
I responded to your AfD comment at Articles for deletion/Variant texts in Scientology doctrine. The issue is not whether there are "sources", but rather what those sources are. It has yet to be demonstrated that this topic has received significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Iyengar
Hi! I wish to inform you that by reverting the article Iyengar to a previous version, you've been unintentionally removing a couple of entries (Anu Haasan and P. Rajagopalachari which I made. I personally feel it is better to have those entries commented out. Some of the people mentioned in the list are particularly important persons and have served as Dewans and Ministers. I'll try to gather more info about them and fix a few of those links. Regards - Ravichandar My coffee shop 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Great Name
Please read the discussions on the page. The protocals for nominating for the article's deletion were not observed. Nur110 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. As I stated, this article has been incorrectly nominated. The placement of the tag is at issue. Please respond to this issue. Thank you. And kindly do not accuse me of what I have not done. I have not changed anything in the article itself. I removed the deletion tag. Nur110 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy for removing tags for proposed deletion state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag.

Nur110 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You will note that I have cited repeatedly here as well as on your talk page that the correct protocol for nominating this article for deletion have not been followed. There is now more than one editor who has pointed this out. The article itself was vandalized by the editor proposing its deletion. The policy for deletion states,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
 * Copyright infringement
 * Patent nonsense or gibberish
 * Vandalism
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms) not supported by reliable sources
 * Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Inflammatory redirects
 * Redundant templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
 * Inappropriate user pages
 * Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

None of these criteria have been met in order for the article to be even placed in the proposal stages for deletion. Please respond to this and the fact that the article was vandalized by the proposer before hurling accusations at others. THank you. Nur110 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD closures
If you come across a situation such as Articles for deletion/Jamel Odom again feel free to close the discussion yourself per the guidelines at Non-admin closure. - Icewedge (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Secretchiefs3 Sock Drawer
The WP:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Great_Name discussion opened up a sock drawer. I suspected that they were all socks of the author.

As I see you took the time to open up a suspected sockpuppet case I apologize for not bringing this up earlier to you, but I didn't want to give even an appearance of collusion outside of the discussion. My apologies for wasting your time.

I wonder if we can strike out, or even delete, the AFD comments from known socks. It'd clean that up considerably. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI. I wonder why it's taking so long to clear this up. This is so bloody obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP AH
Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said to KNHaw on his talk page, your level of involvement is up to you though we have several open tasks and monthly colloborations (our current one is to improve the Alternate history article itself for the month of August) in case you are looking for something to do. Also feel free to improve those authors' pages if you like them, thats cool with me, just make sure to tag with our project banner if you join. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared people
I've removed again this category, because of the description of the category given here (For any individual born before 1885 whose year of death remains undetermined, please change this category to Category:Year of death unknown.). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.125.120 (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the category Category:Disappeared people can not be used for any person born before 1885 (read the description of the category that I copied and marked bold above). This is a category for people who disappeared and they might be still alive, and Richard of Shrewsbury does not satisfy this criterion. Therefore, it can not be in this category.

ARTICLE ON MY USER PAGE
Question-- if I made a copy of the article "Nyrva Dragonrhyne", and put it on my user page, what's wrong with that? Your comment on the deletion discussion page for this article, you say--

Comment Wikatu appears to be creating a duplicate of the article on their User Page. [1] Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So why is this an issue? Can you please clear this up? Aren't people entitled to put whatever they want on a user page here?

I am trying to ask you a fair question here, not attack you.

Thanks. Witaku (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

--- ADDED NOTE: When I read about the sandbox by the way, and what it was for, it said you could use your own user talk page as a "personal sandbox". So I was working on the article on my own page and then transferring the info to the article.

Why are you making this an issue?

Thanks. Witaku (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re : Legal Dept
of the Brhmoist only amicably had advised me to request wikipedia to hide the pages otherwise till not approved by wikipedia inspectors /editors as they smell bias or purposeful religions or their  ignorance or will ful intentions those  are  hindering the social cause, giving a wrong signals  or hits on various search engines. Even when the notability is established by various news agencies. So pls do the needful and hide the page and help me out until I take help from you all soon to reestablish the page once I am geared up again. Till then I am in search of more references and notability.And reminding you - Brhmoist are peace lovers they dont believe in enimity, grudge, They are working to 'unite all religion'peacefully lovingly, amicably- With due Regards to U .--Dralansun (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pixologist rewritten
Hi, I've rewritten pixologist and encourage you to revisit Articles for deletion/Pixologist to see if your concerns have been addressed. Please note that a name change to pixel artist is almost assured if the article is kept. Banj e b oi   20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre
I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Nanking Massacre article. You may actually be right regarding the required citation if I want to call her book discredited. However your revert, reverted a whole lot more than that one detail - you also added a section that I removed due to lack of citations, and you also added the term "infamous" which I removed due to its obviously POV tone.

I guess that was an oversight on your part, as your summary only mentioned the required source for the discredited comment (which after consideration, I would agree with you on)

Unless you disagree with me on the other two items that you reverted (infamous + removed non-cited section) then I would appreciate it if you could go back to the article, and remove those two changes (the removal of discredited seems fine) as I am getting a little too close to 3RR on that article

Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lathander
Hello,

Lathander has been nominated for deletion. I have noticed you working to help other D&D deity articles get kept, in the past. If there is anything you can do to improve this article so that it may be kept, please do so. :) BOZ (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois)
Hellooooo Edward,

I was wondering if you could explain why you removed some referenced material, and replaced it in some cases with unreferenced material. In some cases you reverted edits that were made specifically at the request of editors who had done a requested peer review (seen on the Talk Page)? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
Hi!

In this edit summary you falsely state that the "deletion" is "not explained". It is both not a deletion and it is explained on the talk page. Perhaps you can explain why you wrote such a misleading edit summary?

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the edit summary is factually correct, and not at all misleading. Dlabtot (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding wiki-links
I appreciated your edit to J. R. Wasson precisely because it was so surprising and unexpected. One of the best things about Wikipedia is this curious opportunity for someone like you to perceive a link which the initial contributor did not ... and then it was easy for you to emphasize that unexamined connection.

I had not imagined there would have been any general article about "punitive expeditions," nor would I have considered it at all likely that I would contribute to that kind of non-specific analytical piece. However, the single sentence you've now highlighted is on-point, explicit, clear; and its substance is supported by the language in that archived 1894 New York Times article.

In short, I reckon this minor edit is an illustration of what's best about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia teamwork; but without your small change to an article I'd watch-listed, nothing would have happened. --Tenmei (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guilty Gear

 * I'm a bit wary of removing absolutely all the musical connections, as the names of certain characters being based on rock bands is very plain (ie. Chipp Zanuff = Enuff Z'Nuff), but I understand the policy reason to do so. However, I hope you'd reconsider the removals of Faust (Guilty Gear) as his being Dr. Baldhead is implicitly stated on several occasions in the game. JuJube (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the music references part has always been a repository for silly nonsense from passers-through. I might give making minor changes a shot... later. JuJube (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Samurai
FYI, I undid you here. The text was a copyvio when the article was originally deleted and that still holds true. Please do not re-add it again. ANy questions, let me know. TravellingCari 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, figured it was likely an honest mistake along the lines of 'Hey, where'd all the text go?" Have a good night. TravellingCari  00:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Slashed
Hi, you commented that this article should be deleted as a hoax. Since then I have found a number of sources which strongly suggest it is genuine, and presented them at the AfD. You may want to look at them, and possibly reconsider your vote. the wub "?!"  15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note:
Creating an article is different to "making up" its contents. My view is that his statement "Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" which was in response to Dawn Bard's comment was simply (in other words): "Yes, I don't own the article, but I'm calling it mine because I created the article from scratch or from a stub, and intend on continuing to work on it". It appears that your statement suggests that he's saying that he made up or fabricated the contents of the article, which is what he has a problem with as that is quite a different meaning (and I don't think that was what he meant). Anyway, that's my view as a third party - it might be worthwhile for both of you to clarify this on the page itself because it simply seems to be a misunderstanding. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, others have indicated their belief that the content appears to be made up. However, you're saying Bravo confessed to making it up, and it doesn't appear as if he has stated/confessed that he made it up. It's why it's important to comment on content rather than the contributor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is precisely what I mean't, and I find great difficulty in believing that Edward321 genuinely took it out of context. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. For more details, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism
Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably
 * Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
 * The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.)  That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by, and.

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem
I jump the gun myself sometimes. Montco (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Sorry, my brother was moaning at me to go on the computer so I had to type it in quickly. Yowuza ZX Wolfie  16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance.

Tung-Wang
Hi, I want to let you know about my re-nomination of Tung-Wang for deletion. Previously you voted to keep on notability grounds, but I think if you examine the sources you will see they don't really verify him. Juzhong (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Name321
Hey, that's cool! We both have our names and then "321" for our usernames! That's awesome! Jonathan321 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbaro talk
I am not trying to attack you- but I did not understand why you kept removing every good faith edit that I added. I see from this page that you had some problems with the topic, but my work is good. Leave good work alone- thanks and best to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.63.193 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Edward 321, I see you did what I also thought was a good idea- to add Albergo to the body of text. That works! Best to you- we're cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.63.193 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Societyfinalclubs/Barbaro/etc
Thanks for the heads up on my talk page; I'd somehow un-watchlisted the tracking page and didn't know they were still active. If you were just keeping me informed, thank you. If you were asking for help in dealing with them, I'm afraid I won't be able to help for the foreseeable future. You're more than welcome to leave the vandal-tracking page in my user space, or move it to yours, or whatever you think works best, but I'm not going to be able to be involved anymore. Too many real-world time commitments and something had to give, so I'm semi-retiring indefinitely.

Good luck. --barneca (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really not supposed to be editing this month, but I got sucked back in and I see you're adding possible socks to the subpage again. If I recall correctly, the last Checkuser resulted in 6 month blocks for the IP range; that 6 months is up, which is why (I think) he's returned.  I think a Checkuser would be very helpful here.  Do you want to put one together?  If you don't have the time/inclination, I'll do it, but I'm logging off for the evening soon, and don't know when I'll next be back. --barneca (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs‎.  Please add anything you think necessary and useful. --barneca (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've blocked the three named accounts in the Checkuser case above. The IP seems dynamic, and the IP's haven't been used in a while, so it doesn't make sense to block them; he's moved on by now.  The Checkuser says that he's using a new IP range now, and that a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage.  If you notice other socks, report to an admin, or WP:AN, or someplace, referencing the Checkuser request and my subpage. --barneca (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)