User talk:Eudemis

User_talk:98.26.92.151
Please see User_talk:98.26.92.151. I think it might be better if you posted using your registered username. -- Klein zach  02:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Anna Baltzer
Any discussion on whether to keep Anna Baltzer should go at Articles for deletion/Anna Baltzer. Otherwise it will be missed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer
Want to quickly thank you for your hard work and time in researching second sources to support the notability of the Anna Baltzer article. Henry Delforn (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Russell Crowe
If you believe that some of the editors to Talk:Russell Crowe are sockpuppets the you should make a request at Sockpuppet investigations. If you do not think they are sockpuppets then you would be best looking at some form of Dispute resolution and in particular Requests for comment and Requests for comment/User conduct. If you don't think it needs the full works then Wikiquette alerts might be able to help. something lame from CBW 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

cookie


Jack Merridew has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'm a friendly, neighbourhood, sockpuppet. doan worry; eyez a legit long-term editor of this site.

<span style="white-space: nowrap; background-color: #eee; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, #999, #eee); border: 1px solid #999; border-radius: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 0.5em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); display: inline-block; margin: 0.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 0.8em 0.5em; font-variant: small-caps;" title="“Bollocks to the rules!”">— Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew   22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you seen that User:Doc9871 is thinking that you're a sock of mine? :) Too funny. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Russell Crowe
Your take would be appreciated. Eudemis (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am looking into the matter. I would strongly advise you to tone down your comments, and to be neutral and polite when mentioning other editors. I have looked at some of the comments you have made and your language can be very provocative and upsetting. I understand that editing Wikipedia can be stressful and become personalised - what I suggest is that after you have typed out your comment you look carefully over what you have written before clicking the Save button, and go through and tone everything down. It can be helpful to type out your frustration, but it's never helpful to actual publish it, so always remove the nasty bits before clicking that Save button.  SilkTork  *YES! 05:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your time, which I know is limited, spent looking into the Crowe article. I was going to engage in the talk page discussions ( I never posted a WP:RfC; someone else may have) but decided it might be better if I didn't. Eudemis (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time at the moment to deal with this on a point by point basis. I suggest you carefully and slowly edit the article, and discuss any objections calmly and neutrally on the talkpage (always talk about the content, not the editor), and if you continue to have problems, ping me again.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Focus on content not on other editors. Continue to edit the article in a positive manner. Discuss differences of opinion on the talkpage in a civil and neutral manner (regardless of provocation). Contact me if, after you have done this, you feel you cannot make progress. However, I will not be supportive if I see that you have been rude or hostile to other editors. You'll note that I have been editing the article and have left comments on the talkpage, so you will not be returning to the article without some awareness having been shown that there is a focus on activity on that article. Be bold. Be civil also!  SilkTork  *YES! 11:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Hayslip
Can you tell me how any of those sources are substantial? They're all one sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: WP:Research

 * Please see my response to your comments on my talk page. -- EpochFail (talk 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Don Fex

 * Thanks for the comment on Don Fex. I mentioned in my defense that I was thinking about starting a discussion on WP:Politician regarding the notability of nominees. Honestly, I think the inclusion of city councilors is confusing. The notability criteria for politicians seems to require them to have done something other than be city councilors in order to warrant an article. But if you look at many of the articles on city councilors, it's very rare that they have anything remotely resembling verifiable sources let alone media presence outside of their council-ships. I mean, some of the city councilors in Ottawa that I looked out won elections with less about 30% turnout and less than 10, 000 votes. As I suggested in the Don Fex article, I think this violates journalistic objectivity. It gives incumbents an advantage over non-incumbents, since they are more inclined to turn up on searches and links through third-party web sites (i.e. Facebook). It's a fine line, I guess, between neutrality and a slippery slope. But really, clearer wording and reasoning would be better. Let me know if you have any ideas on the subject. Andwats (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger question
I say be bold and merge. This one seems like a no brainer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Conrad
I've been watching the Robert Conrad discussion regarding birth name and age. It piqued my interest from a census and birth records standpoint, and while doing an exhaustive search at Ancestry.com, I was unable to come up with a Cook County, Illinois birth record for a Konrad Robert Falkowski on either March 1, 1929 or 1935. I did, however, find a Cook County, Illinois birth record for a Conrad Falk on March 1, 1935 (file number is 6008106). Further, the 1920 and 1930 US Census for Chicago, Illinois has a Leonard Falkowski (Conrad's father's name) born 1918-1919. This would have made Conrad's father 16-17 years old at the time of Conrad's birth; very feasable for the time period. The story that Conrad lied about his age and enlisted at 16 in the Marine Corps could very well be accurate. Many young men during WWII lied about their age to enlist (there have been books written on the subject). Today there is a change in the Conrad article where an editor changed the birth name, date, and information regarding Conrad's USMC enlistment. Comparing that with the information I found at Ancestry.com, I think the revised information is compelling, and probably the most accurate. Just thought you'd like to know, since you've been fighting hard for the truth to be included in this article. 97.50.203.163 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing requirements for those changes haven't been met. Of course any original research can't go into the article (Someone else stated he/she checked with his Hollywood agents and confirmed 1929 = original research). Undisputed among the sources, his birth name was "Konrad" not Conrad. Personally, I can't imagine his 16/17 year old parent changing his son's surname to Falk, just sounds implausible to me. If you locate some published media sources on the subject, by all means, share them. Eudemis (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera
Thanks for your note. I am accustomed to editing non-controversial articles, and thus not as aware of how to navigate the different courts of Wikipedia litigation. I agree the concerns in these articles can easily be solved, I am cautiously optimistic that mediation will help, or at least alter the status quo, so that at least balanced explanations are introduced into articles. I will let you know the upshoot of the OLR DRN. I also placed a neutrality dispute on Haydee Torres Beltran, and explanation in Talk section, and will begin that modification when the OLR DRN is finished. Rococo1700 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Filiberto Ojeda Ríos
I would let the RfM play out for while rather than opening up something else. If nothing comes of that then the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard may be it. I've never had to use it so I can't really say what it is like. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Expert
Off hand I can't really think of anybody. Part of it is I haven't had much trouble with neutrality. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 09:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)